Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TYNE AND WEAR BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Tyne and Wear Bill Lords] be now read the third time.

—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.
To be considered upon Monday next.

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [9th November],
That the Promoters of the Anglian Water authority Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than Five o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Anglian Water Authority Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided

that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than Five o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same. in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a second time;

Ordered,
That all Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session, and their locus standi has not been disallowed;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords.

CROMARTY PETROLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Order for further consideration read.

To be further considered upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Inflation

Mr. Skinner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the current rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Steel: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has plans to set another target for reducing inflation.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): We have already made very good progress in reducing the rate of inflation from its 1975 peak of 26·9 per cent. It remains our objective to bring the United Kingdom inflation rate at least down to the levels of our main overseas competitors. I shall not be satisfied until we have achieved this.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the progress referred to has dimmed a bit recently? Does he further accept that, apart from 105 Labour Members of Parliament signing a motion for an alternative strategy, the meeting of the executive of the National Union of Mineworkers this morning presented an alternative strategy that is almost a mirror image of the one on the House of Commons Order Paper, namely, the question of price control, direction of investment, import controls, and the restoration of public expenditure cuts? Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues now put their minds to the task of devising an alternative strategy along those lines?

Mr. Barnett: I have seen the motion signed by my hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends, and I am pleased to note that they have reverted to a selective import control policy rather than one of general import controls. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend demurs, but I have the motion here and I have read it. It is more in line with what the Government have in mind.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and that of many of my hon. Friends, about public expenditure. I doubt, however, that the alternative strategy that he has in mind would do

anything other than increase the rate of inflation

Mr. Adley: Is the Chief Secretary aware that it is deliberately misleading to pretend that the target that the Government are after is a reduction of the rate of inflation from the rate that they themselves created as a result of their first 18 months of government? What the nation wants to know is: when will the target figure begin to approach the supposed figure of 8·4 per cent. that the Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted about in October 1974?

Mr. Barnett: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he thinks so much that he does not listen. He should at least listen to his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who has told him and the House on numerous occasions that the rate of inflation in 1974–75 was due to the excessive growth of money supply led by excessive growth of public expenditure—at that time undertaken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and many of his right hon. Friends, including the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Hardy: As it is relevant, would my right hon. Friend care to inform the House what the current rate of increase is in money supply and what it was two years ago?

Mr. Barnett: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that we intend to ensure that the rate of increase in money supply shall be in the region of 12 per cent., whereas in the years to which he referred it was between 28 per cent. and 30 per cent.

Mr. McCrindle: Is not the disappointingly high rate of inflation due in large measure to the decreasing value of the pound abroad? Is not that, in turn, brought about by the lack of confidence of people abroad in the Government's policies? What new policies have the Government to put before the House and the country with a view to abating the rate of inflation?

Mr. Barnett: I agree that the depreciation of sterling has had some effect. Equally, if we are talking about confidence, some of the more hysterical and exaggerated comments of Opposition Members do not help.

£ Sterling (Value)

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the value of the £ sterling has fallen since he took office.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): Sterling has fallen by 27·3 per cent. in terms of the United States dollar and by 33·6 per cent. in effective rate terms since 8th February 1974.

Mr. Morrison: Is the Minister aware that I am disappointed that the Chan. cellor did not answer this Question? Will he make perfectly clear to those 100 of his right hon. and hon. Friends who yesterday signed an Early-Day Motion deploring further cuts in public expenditure that the£ sterling is bound to drop further unless such public expenditure cuts are announced shortly?

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman may have his own views on that subject, but I think that most people take comfort from the fact that sterling has been pretty strong for the past few days. The hon. Gentleman sees one solution only to the problem of the fall in the value of sterling. Other and better commentators, if I may say so, see the fall in sterling as a valid consequence of the high level of inflation, which goes back some years.

Mr. Gould: Will my hon. Friend say what impact he expects the increase of 33·1 per cent. in unit labour costs last year will have on the exchange rate this year?

Mr. Sheldon: The precise relationship is, of course, a matter for some speculation, but, clearly, there is this relationship—this effect—between the rates of inflation and the decline in the exchange rate. However, at the end of it all what will settle the level of sterling is the value that people put on the prices that they pay for the goods that we export and the goods that are imported into this country.
Whatever Governments may do, it will have a much smaller effect on the final level of sterling than will the factors that I have just mentioned.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Does the Financial Secretary agree that one of the most unfortunate effects of the fall in sterling is on the nationalised industries which

have foreign currency borrowings? Does he agree, therefore, that it is time that the exchange guarantees were stopped, and also the practice of nationalised industries borrowing such large amounts of foreign currency?

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman should take into account the fact that when nationalised industries borrow in foreign currency they must take account of the different interest rates that are payable. The nationalised industries make their own decisions, and it would be wrong for the Government to intrude excessively upon those decisions.

United States Secretary of the Treasury

Mr. Dykes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the United States Secretary of the Treasury to discuss economic and financial matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Hooson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to visit Washington DC to discuss economic and financial matters.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): I have no immediate plans to do so, but I am of course in frequent contact with American colleagues and I shall hope to have an early opportunity to make contact with members of the new Administration.

Mr. Dykes: Is it true that the outgoing United States Secretary of the Treasury believes that this country will need to borrow more than the $3·9 billion proposed IMF facility, particularly if the problem of the sterling balance is to be exorcised once and for all, and that Germany will end up by providing the bulk of a loan which could eventually amount to approximately $10 billion?

Mr. Healey: I have no information whatever to justify that statement, and I should be interested to receive any evidence that the hon. Gentleman has. He will know that the United States Secreretary of the Treasury has expressed great confidence in the management of the British economy and has never criticised it, as sometimes the Opposition have done.

Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the United States when


there is a change of President there is also a change of financial advisers to the President? The United States contend that if there are Presidents of differing political views, with different economic opinions, it is not possible for the same set of advisers to advise both types of President. How does the Chancellor reconcile that with the situation in this country, where there are people such as Mr. Alan Lord, and others, who are now advising my right hon. Friend, and yet were attempting to advise the previous Government who, presumably, were pursuing quite different policies?

Mr. Healey: The function of civil servants in the British constitution is to advise Ministers how to carry out the policies of those Ministers. In my experience, and I am sure, in that of the Opposition Front Bench, they give that advice at all times in the most objective way possible.
My hon. Friend referred to remarks, which were gravely misrepresented in the headlines of The Times today, by Mr. Alan Lord. Mr. Alan Lord, in the lecture to which I believe my hon. Friend was referring, made a powerful argument in favour of the industrial policy that is supported by the Government, the TUC and the CBI He pointed out, as I have done on many occasions, that if we are to achieve the increase in productivity that is our common aim we must create new jobs to replace the jobs that will be lost. We must get more capital investment and better use of existing capital.

Mr. Crawford: Will the Chancellor tell the Secretary of the United States Treasury that with Scottish self-government the £ Scot will rise to at least the equivalent of £1·20 English? Does the Chancellor consider that to be a conservative or a liberal estimate?

Mr. Healey: I confine my discussions with the United States Secretary of the Treasury mainly to facts, but if I ever have time to discuss fantasies I may take account of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

International Monetary Fund (Loan Application)

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the amount of sterling borrowed per household in the United Kingdom if the 3·9

billion dollar loan requested from the IMF is granted.

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to complete his discussions with the International Monetary Fund about the application for the further IMF loan.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the visit of the team from the IMF.

Mr. Jessel: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he next expects to meet representatives of the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Aitken: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of his talks with officials of the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Adley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next intends w meet the IMF.

Mr. Healey: On 29th September I announced my intention to apply to the International Monetary Fund for a standby which would make available our remaining credit tranches in the fund. As hon. Members will be aware, a team from the fund is now in London to discuss the application. I have met the senior members. Discussions with officials began this week and I expect that they will take a fortnight or so. In order to finance the United Kingdom drawings, the International Monetary Fund will need to call upon the Group of Ten countries to activate the general arrangements to borrow. When arrangements with the Group of Ten have been completed, the United Kingdom application will go forward for discussion and approval by the Executive Board of the IMF. At current exchange rates the borrowing will represent some £125 per household.
I believe that this application to the IMF is a prudent and necessary reinforcement for our economic strategy. Representatives of the European Community have expressed their wish and ability to help at the right time, but there has been no formal consultations with them.

Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to the Chancellor for that reply, but is he not aware that this addition of £125 per


household to the already heavy debt incurred by this Government will appal the people of this country, on whom borrowing of £461 per household has already been incurred by this Government?

Mr. Healey: My impression—I suppose we all derive our own views from contacts with our constituents—is that the British people would prefer to maintain the highest possible standard of living at the expense of borrowing at very low rates over a reasonable period rather than to incur the sudden and dramatic fall in living standards which would be involved if we did not succeed in arranging this loan.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Why should a borrowing requirement of £600 per household be such an enormous deterrent to the average family, which borrows about £8,000 for its mortgage?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend has made a point that has often struck me, that the Conservative Party believes in home ownership by borrowing through building societies for the most important and largest single item of expenditure in personal spending, and that its enthusiasm to cease borrowing has never extended to abolition of the building societies.

Mr. McGregor: Bearing in mind that the Chancellor's last package to reduce Government borrowing included misguided and ill-timed extra burdens on industry, will be now agree with the Director-General of NEDO that the next set of measures should be concentrated on non-productive public expenditure—in other words, not capital expenditure and not indirect increases in taxation—and has he expressed this view to the IMF?

Mr. Healey: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the remarks made by the current Director-General of NEDO the other day. He is, of course, free, like all his predecessors, to express his personal views, at the risk of being told by members of the National Economic Development Council that they do not agree with him. Some members of the Council have already expressed that view.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend explain how he can reconcile what he has just said about maintaining the high standards of life of the British people

with the fact that a Treasury adviser has recommended, according to a report in The Times this morning, a high rate of unemployment? The statement of my right hon. Friend and the statement of the Treasury official are irreconcilable. Will my right hon. Friend state quite clearly that it is not his policy to create a high rate of unemployment?

Mr. Healey: I suspect that my lion. Friend entered the Chamber after I answered an earlier question on this specific point. Mr. Alan Lord, in giving a lecture the other day, did not make the remarks which were attributed to him by the sub-editor of the report in The Times. What he said was—I apologise to the House for repeating it—that. if we are to get the increase in productivity which is our common objective, steps must be taken to replace the jobs which will be lost through new investment and lower manning levels with new jobs in productive industry. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares this objective.

Sir G. Howe: The Chancellor made a very important statement when he asserted that the British people would prefer to go on borrowing—at whatever interest rate—and maintaining their standards of living in that way rather than face the realities of economic life. Does the Chancellor realise that so long as he continues to misjudge the mood of the British people in that way his economic strategy is doomed to failure?

Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as so often, completely misrepresents what I said. I referred to borrowing at an exceptionally low rate of interest from the IMF. I remind him that the Government of which he was a member started the programme of public authority borrowing in order to maintain living standards in 1973, at interest rates which were very much higher than those charged by the IMF. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should sometimes show some recall of the activities in which he and his right hon. Friends indulged when they carried the responsibilities that I carry now.

Mr. Watkinson: When my right hon. Friend has further discussions with the IMF will he bear in mind that the world boom seems to be bottoming out much


faster than we expected, and will he draw to the attention of the IMF that it cannot be helpful either to the world or to this country to have further massive deflationary measures imposed upon us?

Mr. Healey: I shall certainly take my hon. Friend's advice. But the responsibility of the countries with substantial reserves and surpluses on their balance of payments to take action which will allow world recovery to proceed somewhat faster is a responsibility which is now acknowledged by authorities as various as the Director-General of the International Monetary Fund, Dr. Witteveen in his speech in Manila the other day, and the leader writer of the Financial Times.

Mr. Ridley: Does the Chancellor remember writing to the IMF just under a year ago to the effect that an essential element in Government strategy was the continuing and substantial reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement? Since he has now told us that it is up £2 billion on the estimates for next year, what will he do about it?

Mr. Healey: Melodramatic shrieks add to the liveliness of our discussions but not very much to our information. The hon. Gentleman made three misstatements in his short intervention. The likely level of the borrowing requirement this year, which was the subject of my undertaking to the IMF last year, is certainly likely to be met. Hon. Members will have seen the latest published figures of the central Government borrowing requirement, which is an important component in that. As for the likely size of the borrowing requirement next year, the next financial year does not begin for another five months, and the reports to which the hon. Gentleman is referring have not been confirmed by me. The hon. Gentleman must await events to see what forecasts can realistically be made for that year.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Government side of the House think that in addition to negotiating the $3.9 billion loan with the IMF, the Government should also be negotiating the phasing out of the sterling balances? Has my right hon. Friend been able to make any progress with that?

Mr. Healey: The Prime Minister has already expressed in public the Govern-

ment's desire to phase out the reserve role of sterling, and this has implications in the handling of the sterling balances. I have already made clear that we have had a number of discussions with the relevant authorities on this matter.

Mr. Jessel: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the negotiators from the IMF are aware that they are dealing with a Government who had lost the confidence of the country, as shown by the by-elections last week, and who are gradually losing the confidence of Parliament, as shown by the Divisions last night?

Mr. Healey: I am glad to say from my contacts with members of the IMF staff that they have a good deal more understanding of political realities in various countries than the hon. Gentleman assumes. They may have noted that the last Labour Administration had similar temporary and local political difficulties at the same time in its period of office and that, before the next election took place, the Government had achieved a surplus both on the balance of payments and on the public sector borrowing requirement, which was disgracefully squandered by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches when they took office.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Since the United States of America has a great effect on IMF decisions, will my right hon. Friend have early discussions with President-elect Carter's financial advisers, as, in his election, President-elect Carter fought on a programme to increase public expenditure and to bring down the unemployment rate, which is the very opposite of what the Opposition stand for?

Mr. Healey: It is a relevant consideration that President-elect Carter said during his campaign—and this would be the view of the British Government—that in his country it was impossible to bring down the rate of inflation so long as there were 8 million or 9 million unemployed, and that to solve this problem by increasing unemployment, which is the policy of the Conservative Party, flies right in the face of all experience and logic.

Mr. Aitken: Is the Chancellor aware that if the recent by-election results are anything to go by, most households in


this country will be extremely dismayed at the prospect of having to pay another £125 a year in financing the Government's spendthrift borrowing? Is it not about time that he started to listen to the voice of the people rather than to the voices of some of his hon. Friends and put the nation's house in order by starting to introduce some serious public expenditure cuts?

Mr. Healey: I listen to the voice of the people, I suppose, as regularly as anyone else in the House, both when I visit my own constituency and when I visit the constituencies of other hon. Members on both sides, and I do not get the message which the hon. Gentleman purports to receive. But I dare say that I visit constituencies that are more representative of the broad mass of the working population of this country.

Mr. MaeFarquhar: I heard my right hon. Friend's earlier remarks about the misrepresentation of Mr. Alan Lord in The Times today, but will he say nevertheless whether he thinks that it is a good idea for a senior civil servant to make speeches of that kind, which can be misinterpreted? Secondly, did my right hon. Friend see the speech and approve it before it was delivered?

Mr. Healey: First, I think that it is a very good thing for senior civil servants to be able to talk in public. I believe that one disadvantage of the British system in the past has been the inability of very able men who are responsible for carrying out Government policy to explain what they are about. I did see and approve the lecture. I shall arrange for a copy of it to be put in the House of Commons Library so that all hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, can see that the headline in The Times completely misrepresented its message, as indeed, was clear from the quotation in the report that followed.

Mr. Adley: Although the Chancellor's record post-war devaluation of over 30 per cent., exceeding that of his Socialist predecessors Cripps and the present Prime Minister, is humiliating enough, can the right hon. Gentleman not understand that IMF visitors having to come here and be forced to live under assumed names is an appalling comment on the level to

which his Government have brought visitors to this country?

Mr. Healey: I think that the House on the whole—even if it were slightly contrary to the rules of the House—would prefer the hon. Member to read his supplementaries rather than try to recite them in that incoherent way, from memory.

Mrs. Millie Miller: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that even if the reports that he has given us about Mr. Lord's actual speech are correct, the problem which arises, if his aim to get greater productivity succeeds completely, is that fewer and fewer people will be required in productive industry? If that is the case, will my right hon. Friend take it that we hope that he will produce a strategy for other types of employment as well as productive?

Mr. Healey: May I remind my hon. Friend that the countries which have succeeded in having a growing manufacturing sector in which employment has increased, not fallen, in recent years—such as France and Japan—have done so by increasing productivity and output? It is no good anybody in this country imagining that we can sustain a higher number of people in unproductive employment unless we have more people in productive employment making better use of existing capital and using more capital than they now have. This was the message that Mr. Lord sought to put over in his lecture, and I strongly advise my hon. Friend to read it, because I think that it is the view of the great majority of people on both sides of the House and on both sides of industry who believe that industrial regeneration is the key to an improvement in Britain's economic performance.

Mr. Nott: Following that answer, will the Chancellor say how industry will go for more productive investment at a time when interest rates are at their present record level and when profitability, as he well knows, has fallen to an all-time low? How can the resources required by British industry be found unless the Chancellor is prepared now to have a dramatic cut in public spending? It cannot make sense unless he does.

Mr. Healey: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the views of the CBI, which can


be regarded as representative of British industry, are completely different from his. The last survey published by the CBI, which was taken after the recent increase in interest rates, forecast a very large increase in manufacturing investment over the coming year. The profitability of British industry has at least doubled in the past two years, and exporting, which must be the key component of demand for economic growth in this country—as the hon. Gentleman, I know, would agree—is more profitable than it has ever been in our history.

Economic Measures

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to announce further economic measures.

Mr. Healey: I have nothing further to add to what I said on 11th October, in the debate on the state of the economy.

Mr. Latham: Has the Chancellor no idea of the deep sense of national humiliation that his policy of muddle and inaction has caused? Does he not realise that immediate and drastic measures are essential, even from this "lame duck" Government?

Mr. Healey: I have always noticed in my political career that those who foul their own nest at some stage in the game dislike the smell; and I know that is the experience of hon. Members opposite. However, I do not get the feeling from my own contact with the British people that they feel humiliated. They feel as proud and determined as ever to conquer the economic and other problems which face them.

Mr. Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever future measures have to be announced they are the prerogative of the elected Government in consultation with the party—[An HON. MEMBER: "Which party?"]—The governing party. Does he therefore also agree that his remarks to my hon. Friend earlier, about the statement by Mr. Alan Lord, are a little dangerous, in that they tend to imply that civil servants can indulge in policy-making options—as, indeed, was the situation in the case of the allegations made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe)

recently—which become, in a sense, self-fulfilling prophecies for those policies.

Mr. Healey: I ask my hon. Friend to read both what I said and what Mr. Alan Lord said in the lecture to which we referred. If he does so, he will see that Mr. Lord was explaining a policy that has been adopted by the Government, by the Labour Party, by the Labour Party Conference, by the TUC, and by the CBI. This explanation of policy—powerful and cogent as it was—would do nothing but assist the attainment of the objectives that my hon. Friend has in mind.
Attacks on civil servants which are not based on an attempt to familiarise oneself with what they have said are deeply to be deplored.
My hon. Friend referred to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). I have been in correspondence with him about some remarks that he made on television the other day, and he has since admitted to me in a letter that he had no names at all in his possession, although he implied in his broadcast that he was not publishing names only because it would be improper to do so in public, and that he had no concrete evidence of any type to present me with to justify the remarks that he made.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the Chancellor aware that he has entirely misconstrued my letter, in exactly the same way as he just now accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) of doing with statements that he had made? I have not admitted any such thing, and I do not admit it. I did not suggest that I had names in my possession.
Is the Chancellor aware that I specifically stated in my letter to him that this allegation was not mine alone and that it had been published within the last two weeks in The Guardian and The Times? Has he taken up my suggestion that he should investigate their allegations, as I asked him to do?

Mr. Healey: This is a fairly important matter. I think that all Members of the House would wish to guard the reputation of hon. Members as being responsible people, by ensuring that if accusations are made against unnamed public servants they should be justified or withdrawn. I do not think that this is the moment at


which I should bandy words with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. I hope he will agree that we should publish our mutual correspondence.
From the published correspondence the House will see that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were not based on any solid evidence whatever, and that in attempting to quote remarks made in recent weeks by journalists he in no way confirmed or corroborated his statement that a year earlier, on a visit to Washington, he had received evidence of this type of malpractice. I hope that after reading the correspondence the whole House will agree that the hon. Member owes it to the reputation of the House to withdraw the allegations immediately.

Mr. David Howell: If we may return to the Question, as tax increases are among the further measures that regrettably, have been suggested, does the Chancellor realise that today a married man with two children has to take a job at £77 a week if he is to make that job worth while? When will the Chancellor make it pay to work in Britain again?

Mr. Healey: I am concerned, as I said yesterday in a broadcast, that the burden of sacrifice now facing the nation falls disproportionately on those who are working rather than those who, for various reasons, are not in work and whose benefits rise automatically in relation either to prices or to earnings gross of tax. This is a matter to which both sides of the House would wish to address themselves. There are many ways in which the problem can be tackled, and all Members of Parliament will know, from their contacts with constituents, that it is a matter of great concern to many people.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will define the meaning of the word "cut" as he applies it to public expenditure, making plain if he regards it as meaning either: (a) reduction from a projected level of future expenditure to one higher than the current level of such expenditure or (b) reduction from the level of expenditure currently being incurred.

Mr. Joel Barnett: My definition of the word "cut" would be the same as that given in the Oxford English Dictionary.

In 1977–78 there will be a reduction from the level of expenditure currently being incurred.

Mr. Tebbit: But does the right hon. Gentleman's definition of "cut" encompass measures to maintain the programme of the Government's spending for next year at the levels that have already been planned and announced?

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman had obviously prepared that supplementary question before hearing my answer. I indicated that the level of expenditure in 1977–78 would be lower than the current level.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now take steps to increase the rate of VAT.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: All tax rates are kept under review but my hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate any decisions that might be reached.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will my hon. Friend confirm that if VAT were restored to its original level of 10 per cent. it would bring in about another £700 million a year, and that if it were increased to 20 per cent. it would bring in between £3,000 million and £4,000 million additional revenue? As food, housing, heating and children's clothes are all exempt, and the real essentials are therefore not affected, will my hon. Friend confirm that that would be a far preferable way to cut the public sector borrowing requirement than by the generation of unemployment or by reductions in the standards of public services?

Mr. Sheldon: I do not have all the figures to which my hon. Friend referred, but he is broadly right in those that he quoted. It is correct that the public sector borrowing requirement can be cut on both the revenue and the expenditure side. Exactly what my right hon. Friend may wish to do in the future is a matter for consideration in the light of subsequent events.

Mr. Budgen: Will the Minister confirm that the nationalised industries have been ordered to borrow abroad and to borrow expensively, rather than to borrow cheaply from central Government, and


that this has been done in order to fiddle the figures for the public sector borrowing requirement?

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There has been no ordering and no compulsion by central Government upon nationalised industries in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, nor would it be right to exercise such compulsion

Tax Deduction Certificates(Building Industry)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reconsider the position with regard to the next tax deduction certificate in view of public concern, and the opposition which it has aroused in the building industry.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: No, Sir. The new certificate is essential to deal with those on the "lump" who are evading the payment of tax and National Insurance contributions.

Mr. Hastings: Is the Minister aware of the deep suspicions that exist among contractors and sub-contractors, particularly about the photographs that are to be required? Has the Minister seen the alternative suggestions that have been put forward by the National Federation of the Self-Employed, which seem to me to be perfectly reasonable? Will he now consider postponing this scheme and appointing a representative from the Federation to his Advisory Construction Manpower Board so that the difficulties can be frankly discussed before the scheme is imposed upon the industry? Surely that is the most sensible way to proceed.

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman will know of the problems that we have had over the past five years in the levels of tax evasion. The difficulties experienced by the previous Government have to be put right because of the widespread evasion by a limited number of firms. I am always prepared to look at further suggestions, and if the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me to explain his ideas, I shall be prepared to consider them. But it is essential that we end the widespread evasion that has been taking place.

Mr. Paul Dean: Does the Minister realise that present evidence suggests that a significant number of self-employed

people in the construction industry will be deprived of their livelihood, through no fault of their own, because of the harsh operation of the regulations? Will he postpone their operation until he has sorted out the present harshness.

Mr. Sheldon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to correct this misunderstanding. The certificate, I repeat, is not a certificate to work. Income tax can be deducted at source if such a person is unable to obtain a certificate. He is still able to earn his livelihood in just the same way. The arrangements that we have explained to the House are to ensure that income tax is collected and not evaded.

Mr. George Rodgers: Is there any evidence of public concern as implied in the original Question, as distinct from concern within the particular trade or industry?

Mr. Sheldon: I have had a number of representations, as my hon. Friend will understand, some of which concerned the nature of the photograph. But, of course, it is essential that we end once and for all this more than five-year-old scandal, whereby large sums of money have been lost. Finally, we must come to a proper conclusion, and the method announced by the Government is, we believe, the best way to proceed.

Income Tax

Mr. Corbett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income tax due to be paid but not remitted was recovered by the Inland Revenue as a result of (a) negotiation and (b) prosecution in each of the last three tax years.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Information is not available as to the amounts of income tax overdue and recovered without the need for enforcement action. The amounts for which legal proceedings were commenced, including corporation tax, capital gain tax and surtax as well as income tax, were approximately as follows: year to October 1973, £19 million; 1974, £25 million; 1975, £40 million.

Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend look again al the collection and compilation of these figures? Is not it grossly unfair that when millions of working people regularly pay their taxes through PAYE


there are these apparent loopholes in the general tax system?

Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend is quite right in the comparison that he makes between the various parts of our tax and social security systems, but at the same time it must be pointed out that we are never in a position to know the levels of evasion at any time. We can only ensure that the arrangements we have made for the collection of tax are as rigorous as can be devised, and if my hon. Friend has any comments, or contributions, to make, I shall be delighted to hear from him.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Has the Minister read the article in The Times today by Sir William Pile, in which it is alleged that there is to be a special clamp-down on small companies in the collection of tax? Is there to be discrimination between large companies and small ones? Is the Minister aware that, for example, in my constituency last week the bailiffs were sent in to a company which employs 20 people, and whose tax was only seven days overdue?

Mr. Sheldon: I am always pleased to hear from the hon. Gentleman concerning his constituents. He writes to me regularly and I am always pleased to assist whenever I can. But I can state quite categorically that it is not the Government's intention to do anything other than assist small companies and to help to solve their problems. If there are certain difficulties in the income tax system I am always prepared to consider them, but I must make it clear that I have no information that these matters bite more harshly on small companies than on others, for the reasons that I have indicated.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Thursday 11th November.

Mr. Luce: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his public engagements for 11th November.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. Later this

afternoon I shall be leaving for France for talks with President Giscard.

Mr. Dykes: After what must have been, presumably, a lively Cabinet meeting, will the Prime Minister take 10 minutes off this afternoon to have a quiet meeting with his own conscience and then admit that the Dock Work Regulation Bill was defeated here in the House of Commons yesterday, not in the Upper House, and that the only respectable constitutional conclusion to draw from that is that this ridiculous Bill should be dropped?

The Prime Minister: I do not need to consult my conscience about that. I prefer to consult the report of Sir Peter Bristow, published in 1970, which recommended much the same the arrangements as are contained in this Bill. I regret very much the way in which the House of Commons decided the matter last night, but I should like to make clear—

Mr. Skinner: The Tories voted against it.

The Prime Minister: We remember what happened when the Official Solicitor was dragged out when the Tories last interfered. But there is too much inflammable tinder around at the moment. I hope that the Opposition will not behave like schoolboys.
I want to make clear the following points. First, the Government will save what they can from this Bill. I want dockland to understand that. I want dockland also to understand that the House of Commons is the centrepiece of our constitution. It can be wrong. Yesterday, in my view, it was wrong. But I urge all those in dockland who are considering this matter not to be led into intemperate courses by what they believe to be the decision yesterday.
We shall do our best, because we recognise the antecedents of the Bill. I, too, represent dockers, and I recall dockers who used to fight with their fists for a day's work. Those are the antecedents of this Bill. It ill becomes those who have no knowledge of the background of the dock industry, and who have totally neglected the antecedents of this measure, to take the line that this is a matter for mere party games. It is something more important, and concerns the future of the dock industry.

Mr. Henderson: In the context of the original Question, the Prime Minister, of course, will be aware that this is Armistice Day. Is he aware that great offence has been caused to the people of Scotland by the decision to exclude my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) from his proper place, as a leader of a party in this House, at the Cenotaph ceremony? Is he aware that many people in Scotland will regard it as an indication that the ceremony is to be an English ceremony only? Will he intervene personally in this matter to ensure that my hon. Friend—an ex-Service man himself—is given a proper place on Sunday?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asks his questions according to his own sense of propriety and taste, but I do not believe that the people of the United Kingdom will accept that the ceremony at the Cenotaph should be made a matter for party dispute.
A request was made by the Scottish National Party early this week for representation at the Cenotaph. There are other minority parties in the House which might also wish to be represented. [Interruption.] Will hon. Members please not get excited about this? It is a solemn occasion for many people. The Home Secretary has made it clear to the Scottish National Party that he is willing to enter into discussions before next year about this matter, to see whether some agreement can be reached about the minority parties. Meanwhile, the leaders of the national parties that are represented—including the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), who is a Scottish Member, the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, who represents an English constituency, and I who represent a Welsh constituency—will be laying wreaths on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Will my right hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) that the Scots—my countrymen, like his—who died in those wars died for the Union—the United Kingdom—not only for Scotland?

Mr. Crawford: They died for freedom.

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I hope that the people of Scotland will not accept the views that have been adumbrated by the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that the people of Wales will, and I very much doubt whether Scotland is any different in that sense.

Mr. Luce: Does the Prime Minister agree that the growing contempt shown by the outside world towards Britain is not only humiliating but unacceptable to the British people? In the light of the by-election results and the Government's defeat last night, will the Prime Minister now respond to the national mood by dropping the obnoxious Dock Work Regulation Bill and undertake to introduce the harsh economic measures that are required to secure our economic recovery?

The Prime Minister: I have made clear our attitude to the Dock Work Regulation Bill and I hope that the House of Lords will not add to the potential dangers that exist there—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."]—unless Conservative Members wish to encourage irresponsibility, which is easy enough to stir up. I am trying to avoid stirring it up this afternoon. If we can preserve what features remain of the Dock Work Regulation Bill, I think that we stand the best chance of ensuring that the situation there will remain calm and that we shall be able to carry forward security for the dock workers.
Regarding the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question on economic measures, my right hon. Friend has been answering questions for 45 minutes on this and many other matters, and has given a very good account of his stewardship. I have nothing to add to what he said.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain to the International Monetary Fund, to the Opposition, and their newspapers, the elementary fact that if they insist on further cuts in public expenditure it will not reduce the deficit, because it will mean an increase in unemployment and related benefits? If they say that they want to switch from housing, and so on, to exports, is it not unfortunately a fact that, with 1½ million


unemployed and thousands of factories working at 60 per cent, capacity, there are more than enough resources to cover both these fields without cuts?

The Prime Minister: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says about ratcheting down the economy at a time when there is clearly no strong growth, although I am glad to say that the figures published today show that for September the all-industries index was 1½ per cent. higher. However, I do not place too much weight on one month's figures, as my hon. Friend knows. As regards the general situation, this is, of course, not just a question of resources and their proper use; it is also a question of financing the deficit, and that is a problem which I do not think my hon. Friend always faces.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Prime Minister to be a little more explicit about his intentions with regard to the Dock Work Regulation Bill? He must have taken the decisions at the Cabinet meeting this morning. I understand that he completely accepts the verdict of this House on the decision that it made, and therefore it would seem from what he said that he intends to accept the distance of half a mile as the operative limit, because that was the verdict of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman is to make any sense of the Bill—it cannot go on the statute book in its present form, because it is senseless—does he intend to adjust the consequential amendments in the other place to fit in with the verdict of this House and then put the Bill on the statute book in that form? He must have taken the decisions this morning.

The Prime Minister: It is a little late for the right hon. Lady now to say that her amendments make nonsense of the Bill. That was the decision of the House of Commons. The Bill now returns to the House of Lords, and it will be for the House of Lords to consider the matter. If it comes back here again, we shall have to see how sense can be made of it.
My own conclusion on this is that we should accept the decision of the House of Commons so far as we must, and that is what I urge everybody in the industry as well as in the House to do until it can be changed. Having done

that, it seems to me that we must try to make some sense of the Bill within the procedures laid down by the House. That is what we shall endeavour to do, but I cannot go into those details at Ques-Time this afternoon.

Mrs. Thatcher: What makes the Bill nonsense is the Secretary of State's failure to adjust—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is the Prime Minister aware—clearly he is not, sometimes—that what now makes the Bill nonsense is the failure of the Secretary of State to adjust the consequential amendments after the House of Commons' verdict last night. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the verdict of the House—I assume that he does—he must accept the consequences that flow from it.

The Prime Minister: The House of Commons must accept the consequences for what it has done, because it was the House of Commons that took some of these nonsensical decisions. That is why I say that it is now the task of the Government to preserve what they can of the Bill to maintain peace in dockland. The Opposition must recall the history of this Bill and the strikes out of which it arose. They must bear in mind the antecedents. They may disagree with some of the clauses in the Bill, but the antecedents of the Bill lie in industrial bitterness and dispute. It ought to be in the interests of every hon. Member to try to ensure that that kind of situation does not flare up again.
As for the future, having kept what we can of the Bill it is important at the earliest possible stage to see what improvements can be made within it. That may mean, at some stage asking the House of Commons to change its mind about these matters. These, I think, are issues that will have to be gone into at greater length.

Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the attitude of the Opposition on this matter has been totally irresponsible? Is he aware that in ports such as Liverpool not only dock workers but those associated with the docks will be bitterly disappointed at what has happened to the Bill? Is he aware also that many of us, like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who was a dock worker, have been persuading dock workers to hold


off industrial action for a long time, because we expected that the Bill would become the law of the land? Is it not clear that we now need to amend the Bill, if we can, at the earliest possible moment in the next Session of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: It is a matter of history that if Sir Peter Bristow's report, which was made in 1970, had been acted upon earlier, there would have been a good chance of avoiding the national dock strikes of 1970 and 1972. I ask my hon. Friend and all other hon. Members who represent dockland and dock areas to continue with their efforts in the direction of moderation. The Bill must be put right at some stage. Perhaps we cannot do it yet, but we shall clearly need to return to it, and I want everybody concerned with the dock industry to understand that. Even though some provisions may have to be altered, there will be a firm intention to provide security for the dock workers.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister go a little further? Will he not explain that what happened last night is a good thing? The House was asserting itself on the Government's legislation. There never has been any public of political support for legislating to the exclusive advantage of one group of workers against others.

The Prime Minister: I am all in favour of the House of Commons asserting itself, although sometimes I wish that the Government had the chance of doing so. On the hon. Gentleman's material point, I do not think that he is penetrating to the heart of the matter. It was the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, following the docks dispute in London, which said that the legislation governing employment of dock workers was out of date and needed radical revision to reflect economic, technological and industrial relations changes.
I want to make the position clear. This is not a matter of party games, whatever the Opposition may think. Perhaps there are some better proposals than those in the Bill which could be put into the Bill, but what is quite clear is that the Opposition's amendment yesterday, in the right

hon. Lady's words, made nonsense of the Bill.

Mr. Loyden: I accept my right hon. Friend's point on the state of the Bill, but does he not agree that as it now stands it is meaningless in relation to its original intention? Does he accept that the decision taken last night stemmed mainly from the fact that the Bill has been misrepresented and distorted by the Tory Party, by Aims of Industry, and by the media up to 1 o'clock today, when on the BBC it was stated that this was the Bill intended to make every job within a five-mile limit a dock job? That is the sort of distortion that has followed the Bill right through its course, and one of the reasons why it failed last night.

The Prime Minister: I do not think it right to say that the Bill has been made meaningless. I think that it now has grave defects as a result of the amendments that were passed. But there is value in the Bill still, and that is why we should like to proceed with it and put it on the statute book. As for what is said on the BBC at 1 o'clock, I have long given up listening to that. It always gives me indigestion at lunchtime.

Mr. Prior: Does not the Prime Minister understand that in many respects the Bill that he proposed was a recipe for industrial unrest in itself? Would it not be more statesmanlike on his part if he now recognised that the Bill was unsatisfactory and sought the co-operation of the Opposition to introduce a Bill that would look after the dockers' interests without, at the same time, destroying the proper jobs of many other people?

The Prime Minister: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he will co-operate with the Government in removing the amendment for which he voted and substituting something else for it? If that is not what his question meant, I cannot think what it did mean. He knows, as do the Government, that the half-mile limit is nonsense. If that is what he meant, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be glad to meet him to discuss that matter. But if he does not mean that, perhaps he will kindly explain, presumably in the form of a Question, what he did mean.

MR. SPEAKER (CASTING VOTE)

Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I spoke to you last night and you advised me that because of the guillotine it would be for the convenience of the House if I raised this point of order now. I have given you notice of the point which is before you.
Last evening it was necessary on three occasions for you, Mr. Speaker, from the Chair to give a casting vote. This is the first time since 24th July 1862 that it has been necessary for a casting vote to be given on agreeing or disagreeing with a Lords amendment. At that time Speaker Denison, as reported in column 785 of Volume 168 of Parliamentary Debates, made a specific ruling.
That is the only occasion on which such a decision had to be made by the Chair. It might interest the House to learn that among other proceedings on that day was the Second Reading of the Union Relief Aid Bill.
In dealing with the casting vote given by Mr. Speaker, "Erskine May" is quite clear. On page 403 it states:
If the numbers in a division are equal, the Speaker, who otherwise does not vote, must give the casting vote. In the performance of this duty, he is at liberty to vote like any other Member, according to his conscience, without assigning a reason; but, in order to avoid the least imputation upon his impartiality, it is usual for him, when practicable, to vote in such a manner as not to make the decision of the House final".
That, Mr. Speaker, is what you did last night. If you had voted with the Opposition the decision would have been final. "Erskine May" continues:
and to explain his reasons, which are entered in the Journal.
For greater accuracy I have obtained from the Library—because Hansard has not yet been published—the exact quotation recorded of the reason that you gave. It says:
Mr. Speaker: As the House knows, my vote is guided by precedent, and I vote with the Ayes.
As I have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the only precedent goes back 124 years. It is interesting to note that the records at that time are, of course, only a summary of the debate, together with a summary of

the reasons. It was not until 1909 that Hansard became a precise record of our proceedings. Therefore, it seems that it is of importance that we should be able to clarify the position for the record, and it would be helpful if you, Mr. Speaker, were willing to assist the House in this matter.
"Erskine May" states that there are two important facts which the Chair must consider in this matter. One I have already dealt with, but the two principles, again on page 403, are the principles on which the Speaker gives a casting vote:
The occasions on which a Speaker is required to give a casting vote must always be rare, and in seeking to deduce principles upon which such a vote is given, the precedents of the last two centuries are relevant … the decisions of successive Speakers have not invariably been consistent"—
but the principles emerge, and they are two. The second—
that, where no further discussion is possible, decisions should not be taken except by a majority"—
does not arise in this case, but the first, and I believe the most important, is
that the Speaker should always vote for further discussion, where this is possible".
My points of order are two—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a not unimportant issue. The question of the vote of the Chair is of great significance to the House, and this is a question that may well be referred to in future days.

Mr. Emery: Therefore, the two questions that I should like to ask are, first, whether you would assist the House, Mr. Speaker, by explaining further than just as a matter of precedence the reason for your vote; and, secondly, as a matter of order, whether the first principle as enunciated in "Erskine May"—
that the Speaker should always vote for further discussion, where this is possible
was one of the reasons in your mind before you came to your decision.

Mr. Skinner: Mr. Skinner rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a considered reply to give to the House and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to let me give it.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) was good enough to tell me last


night that he intended to raise this question.
I must first make it plain to the House that the discretion of the occupant of the Chair in casting his vote is absolute. In the first edition of "Parliamentary Practice" published in 1844, Sir Thomas Erskine May wrote, and I think the hon. Gentleman quoted:
In the performance of this duty he is at liberty to vote like any other Member according to his conscience, without assigning a reason".
This sentence has remained word for word unchanged in each of the 18 succeeding editions of "Parliamentary Practice".
It follows therefore that the discretion of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker cannot be challenged in the House on a point of order; and it is only as a courtesy to the hon. Member and to the House that I am giving a brief explanation of the position as I see it, because I thought it was wise that this statement should be made.
Sir Thomas Erskine May also refers in the first edition to a convention that in order to avoid the least imputation against his impartiality it is usual, when practicable, for the Speaker to vote in such a manner as not to make the decision of the House final and to explain the reasons, which are entered in the Journal. This was the point that the hon. Gentleman made. This phrase has also remained unchanged in later editions and is always an important factor in the mind of the occupant of the Chair, as it was last night.
Some principles may be deduced from the reasons which have been given by my predecessors, and these are explained in the pages following page 403 of the current edition of "Parliamentary Practice". Casting votes have, however, in the past been extremely rare and it is not always easy to deduce from these principles—such as they are—what I might call the collective wisdom of my predecessors over the last century and a half. In some cases the principles may conflict with each other; on other occasions there may simply be no principle which is applicable.
Where there is no precedent, the House must accept that in such cases any Speaker or one of his deputies will observe absolute fairness as between both

sides of the House; and I do not think that the House can do other than put their trust in the occupant of the Chair to do this.
Before I leave this point, may I refer in passing to the practice of the Press and the broadcasting media of referring, no doubt colloquially, to the Chair having given its vote "for the Government" or "against the Government." This may be the practical effect of the casting vote, but it would be wrong for it to be assumed either inside or outside this House that the Chair gives any consideration at all, in casting its vote, to the effect it will have on the policies of either the Government or the Opposition.
Finally, may I say that last night the casting vote concerned a decision of the House on a Lords amendment. This is one of the few clear cases where there is an absolutely direct precedent, and in this House the fact that a precedent goes back a long way has never been held to invalidate it.
As the hon. Member for Honiton has reminded us, on 24th July 1862—before any of us was present—when the numbers were equal on a question for disagreeing to a Lords amendment, Mr. Speaker Denison said that he would support the Bill as passed by the House of Commons. In the light of such a clear ruling by one of my predecessors, no occupant of the Chair, to my mind, could possibly depart from it.
In view of what I have said, the House will understand that I can allow no further points of order on this matter.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I am not taking any points of order on the question of the vote of the Chair.

Mr. Skinner: Not on this specific point.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the House understand that I am not taking any further points of order on the question of the voting of the Chair.

Mr. Skinner: On the generality of questioning your ruling, Mr. Speaker, even though it is accepted, as you have demonstrated, that your ruling is absolute, I wish to inquire whether it is in order for all hon. Members to question the ruling, as has been demonstrated


by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) today.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raises a wider point, and I accept that he is not challenging in any way what I have said on the voting last night. Of course, hon. Members may from time to time ask questions. What is not in order is to criticise any ruling of the Chair, except by way of putting a motion on the Order Paper.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Marten: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that we spent 21 minutes on Question Q1? It was an interesting discussion which ranged from the docks to the economy to the Cenotaph memorial, but will you. Mr. Speaker, kindly look into this, because it creates difficulties for those who have tabled Questions Q2 and Q3.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Gentleman's Question was Q3. Experience has already taught me that, no matter what the number is, during Prime Minister's Question Time the field goes very wide. I have endeavoured to say that supplementary questions must be related to the Question on the Order Paper, and the House has resisted strongly. The House has brought this on itself. However, I shall do my best.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President to state the business of the House for next week.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15th November—Motion on the Endowments and Glebe Church Measure. Motion on EEC Document on the JET Project, R/2284/76.
TUESDAY 16th November—Remaining stages of the Public Lending Right Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 17th November, THURSDAY 18th November and FRIDAY 19th November—Consideration of Lords amendments.
MONDAY 22nd November—Business to be announced later.

Mrs. Thatcher: The right hon. Gentleman has been less revealing than usual about next week's business. Will he help us a little in respect of Wednesday, Thursday and Friday? If my understanding is correct, the Health Services Bill will be in another place on Thursday for its Third Reading. Therefore, it could not possibly come back here until Friday.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say, too, when he intends to recommend that Parliament be prorogued?

Mr. Foot: I am sorry that I have not been able to be as revealing as usual to the right hon. Lady and the House, but to some extent we are dependent upon the timing of decisions in another place. From all the indications we have, it is probable, as the right hon. Lady said, that Friday will be the only day on which we shall be able to consider the Health Services Bill when it comes back to the House of Commons. I am sorry, too, to have to tell the right hon. Lady that I cannot say for certain when we shall prorogue Parliament. I hope that we shall not have to go on after 22nd November. We shall certainly be meeting on that Monday.

Mr. Grimond: I recall that the Leader of the House said that there would be time to have a debate on Scottish affairs before the end of the Session. Do I understand now that there is to be no debate on Scottish affairs, or is the matter to be sent to the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mr. Foot: If I gave an undertaking that there would be a debate on Scottish affairs before the end of the Session and we have been unable to fulfil that undertaking, I am sorry. I cannot recall giving such an undertaking, but if I did, I shall certainly look at the matter. I do not see any prospect of such a debate before the end of the Session. I dare say that Scottish affairs, in one way and another, will be coming before the House in the next Session.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: May I make an appeal to the House to bear in mind that we shall punish ourselves later in the day


if we take a long time on business questions? I ask hon. Members to make their questions as brief as possible.

Mr. Ogden: Will the Leader of the House advise us whether we should try to make or break any engagements for Saturday and Sunday?

Mr. Foot: I hope that we shall not have to go to that extremity. I hope that we shall be able to conclude our business at a reasonable hour on the days provided. However, I cannot give any absolute guarantee.

Mr. Younger: Will the Leader of the House give us time next week to discuss Early-Day Motion No. 669?
[That this House calls for the resignation of the Minister of State at the Department of Industry, in view of the irresponsibility of his claim that Scottish Aviation is "teetering on the edge of destruction" and that only the Nationalisation Bill can save it, a claim which was immediately denied by the management and which, even if true, would do untold damage to the position of this Scottish firm which relies for over half of its work on export; considers that the Minister's outburst was simply an unsuccessful attempt to secure the support of the SNP, as he did on a previous vote on nationalisation; and deplores the fact that the passage of this Bill which will damage the British and Scottish economies was secured by the vote of an Irish Republican.]
The motion concerns the disgraceful statement by the Minister of State, Department of Industry, suggesting that Scottish Aviation Limited, a firm in my constituency, was teetering on the brink of destruction. Such a statement can only do harm to the important export orders that this company is trying to obtain. The statement has been repudiated by the company.

Mr. Foot: Subject to any ruling from the Chair, such matters could be debated in the House today. But I cannot hold out any prospect of a special debate next week, and certainly I repudiate all the accusations made by the hon. Gentleman against my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dalyell: If we are not to have a debate on Scottish affairs, could not

the Lord President persuade Mr. Alan Lord to make a speech on the question of the £ Scot and the £ sterling and the nonsense arising therefrom?

Mr. Foot: I am not too attracted by Mr. Alan Lord's comments on many other matters, and I shall not encourage him to speak on that subject.

Mr. du Cann: Will the Leader of the House be good enough to say what is the earliest whole day he thinks he will be able to allocate for a debate on the six reports of the Public Accounts Committee of this Session? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be to the general advantage, at a time of economic stringency, that there should be a debate on obtaining value for taxpayers' money?

Mr. Foot: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, as I have said on previous occasions, and as previous Leaders of the House have said on other occasions, that we should, naturally, wish to have a debate on the reports of Select Committees as often as we can; but it is sometimes difficult to fit them in. That does not mean that I should accept everything that the right hon. Gentleman says in some of his reports.

Mr. Fitt: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the amendment to Motion No. 665, which seeks to give protection to any hon. Member of this House who votes in the interests of his constituency and as he sees fit?
[That this House recognises and will clef end the right of every elected representative to vote for the interests of his constituents in accordance with his own conscience and judgment, in any division of the legislature to which he has been elected, and deplores the activities and disruptive actions of the non-elected Members of the House of Lords, bearing in mind that the Conservatives have never rejected support from minorities, from any part of the United Kingdom.]
Will the Leader of the House provide time so that the House may have an opportunity to refute the slanders and the scurrilous and heated attacks that have been mounted by the Opposition and their friends of the Press because an hon. Member sought to do his duty by his constituents?

Mr. Foot: It is a very good thing fox the House of Commons that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) put down that amendment which won the immediate support of so many Members of the House. The original motion was certainly not one that did any credit to the Order Paper of this House.
[That this House, noting that the Government is dependent upon the support of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for its passage of measures for which it has never had popular support and which the electorates of two constituencies have recently emphatically rejected, deeply deplores the Prime Minister's castigation of reasonable and constructive criticism as conspiracy and considers that it would be more in keeping with the traditions of British democracy for him to listen to the voices of those who believe in the constitution of the United Kingdom, rather than to rely on the passive support of one whose aim is to change it.]
It was therefore right that the proper liberal doctrine of the House should be expressed in the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend, and I should have thought that it would receive overwhelming support in the House.

Mr. Hastings: My hon. Friends are concerned about the curious course which the negotiations on Rhodesia in Geneva appear to be taking. The only information that we receive is from the newspapers. When may we expect an authoritative statement from the Foreign Secretary about them?

Mr. Foot: The Foreign Secretary will make a statement as soon as he thinks it advisable and helpful. I do not think that hon. Members in any part of the House should rely solely on what the newspapers have to say on these subjects.

Mr. Jay: As some important issues are raised by the motion due for discussion tomorrow relating to procedure on EEC legislation, can my right hon. Friend assure us that if there is not time for proper discussion tomorrow, time will be found later?

Mr. Foot: I gave an undertaking in a Written Answer on 4th August that there would be a further debate. It may, how-

ever, be difficult to find a suitable opportunity for debate in the near future, and as the changes that we propose are entirely to the advantage of the House—although I realise they may not go as far as some hon. Members may wish—tomorrow's debate will give the House an opportunity to accept the changes themselves at the earliest opportunity. If they are opposed, of course, they fall and can be brought forward again in the next Session. Certainly I renew the undertaking that there must be a debate on the subject, and we can decide how to settle that aspect of the matter tomorrow.

Mr. Kilfedder: May we have time to debate the grave economic situation in Northern Ireland and the unprecedented unemployment in the Province as soon as possible because consultations on the Quigley document will not resolve the situation more immediately?

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise such a debate next week, for reasons which I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, but I do not underestimate the seriousness of the unemployment situation and the associated problems he raises. Obviously, the House will have to discuss them at the beginning of the next Session in some form or other.

Mr. David Watkins: When will the House have an opportunity to come to a decision on the Lords amendments on industrial common ownership?

Mr. Foot: I hope very much that we shall be able to fit in the Bill next week and that we shall be able to get it on to the statute book.

Mr. Noble: In view of the many hon. Members from the North-West who wish to speak in the debate on regional affairs in Committee upstairs next week, will my right hon. Friend place on the Order Paper an appropriate motion to extend the time allowed for that debate?

Mr. Foot: Several hon. Members have approached me on this subject, and I shall be glad to put down a motion to extend the period of debate.

Mr. George Rodgers: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the policy of taking regional discussion away from the Chamber of this House? Does he not think that it loses considerable significance by not being debated in the Chamber?

Mr. Foot: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point of view. Debates on these subjects in Committee upstairs can be of great value, but I fully accept his view that that cannot be accepted as a substitute for debate in the House. Regional policy is of such paramount importance to so many parts of the country that we must look for opportunities to debate it here, and some of these questions will obviously be debatable when we come to the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Molloy: I thank my right hon, Friend for the assistance that he has given in the past on Greater London affairs. Notwithstanding other procedures which we can adopt to have Greater London affairs examined, does my right hon. Friend not think that Greater London ought to be promoted to the status of, say, Scotland or Wales? There are many millions more people in Greater London than in those areas, and I hope that he will consider it right to have the affairs of Greater London discussed more often on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Foot: Many of my hon. Friends also do succeed in discussing the matter frequently. It must not be assumed that the subject is not often discussed in the House. My hon. Friend knows the difficulties in securing more debates on these subjects.

Mr. Loyden: Could I ask my right hon. Friend to give some attention to the Electricity Supply Bill and to say whether he could during the week consider the possibility of a Second Reading?

Mr. Foot: I do not think that there is any prospect of that next week but I shall look up the point raised by my hon. Friend.

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

[ALLOTTED DAY]

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

BRITISH AEROSPACE AND BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 6, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c).

4.2 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): I beg to move,
That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It will be convenient if we take together Lords Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 17 and 22.
These amendments have one common denominator in that they seek to place restrictions either on the powers of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or on the future activities of both British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders. When we discuss the amendments I take it that Conservative Members will realise that many of the amendments go against their own legislation because many of the provisions with which another place disagrees already have been incorporated in measures such as the Gas Act 1972 and in many other nationalisation statutes.
Lords Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 restrict the powers of my right hon. Friend to provide for disclosure during board deliberations of board members' interest in contracts. In themselves these are logical extensions of the powers enshrined in the Gas Act. As the Bill now stands, and if their Lordships' amendments are unaltered, the powers of the Secretary for Industry are now so restricted that, I am informed, he would not have even the power to appoint a deputy chairman to the Corporation. As the amendments now stand, my right hon. Friend's powers have been severely curtailed far beyond the provisions made by the Opposition in their own legislation.
I turn to Amendment No. 5. Their Lordships seek to insert the provision


that nothing in the legislation should preclude British Airways or any other airline registered in this country from buying elsewhere if they find that British Aerospace cannot provide the articles they want. Nothing in the Bill precludes what the amendment seeks to achieve and for this reason I submit that the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 6 removes the power of my right hon. Friend to adjust the duties of the two Corporations. From time to time my right hon. Friend might seek to adjust the duties of the two Corporations in line with their changing needs. As the hon. Member knows, this procedure already has been discussed both in Committee and on Report and in using his powers my right hon. Friend would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of this House and of another place. I suggest that it is not correct for hon. Members opposite to lament the possibly poor performance of the two Corporations if, before doing so, they seek to restrict their powers to respond to changed circumstances.
Both my right hon. Friend and I envisage that in many circumstances certain activities may well be pursued by the two Corporations which gradually become more central. To prepare for that contingency it would be advisable for my right hon. Friend to formalise that activity. That is what these powers in Clause 2 seek to do.
I want to stress to Conservative Members that there is nothing in these powers that would provide for public ownership, as they have mentioned in some of their accusations. Indeed, what we are trying to do in enabling my right hon. Friend to have these powers is to extend parliamentary surveillance of the activities of the two Corporations. The powers will enable Parliament to formalise the activities into which the Corporations may move.
I come now to Lords Amendment No. 11. Clause 3 deals with the powers of the two Corporations and their need to seek the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. One of the things that my right hon. Friend is bound to take into consideration is other manufacturers—particularly domestic manufacturers—who may be affected by the powers of these two Corporations. As my right hon. Friend is already bound

to take account of those considerations in his deliberations on this issue, I certainly do not think that what the Lords amendment seeks to do in extending that kind of consent to this House and another place is necessary.
If parliamentary approval were necessary and if parliamentary approval were to replace the consent of my right hon. Friend, that would represent an undue delay imposed upon the two Corporations in responding to changing economic situations. Once again, this is simply enabling the two Corporations to respond in exactly the same way that for example, the British Steel Corporation was enabled to respond to changing circumstances in the Iron and Steel Act 1967.
I turn now to Lords Amendment No. 17. Their Lordships seek to remove the Secretary of State's power to give such directions as he considers appropriate for securing that the management of the activities of the Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries is organised in the most efficient manner. I am advised that this is a fairly standard insertion. It is in the Iron and Steel Act 1967, and if I may say so to Conservative Members it is in their own Civil Aviation Act 1971. It is also in our old friend, the Gas Act 1972.
What is intended by this standard insertion in pieces of nationalisation legislation is not interference in detail but merely a reserve power for my right hon. Friend. I certainly do not think that all the dreadful events which were forecast in another place would come about if my right hon. Friend had this general reserve power. After all, we have stressed, both in this House and in another place, that this is intended only to apply in general principle and not in minute detail.
Finally, and briefly again because I do not wish to delay the House, I wish to turn to Lords Amendment No. 22. The power which my right hon. Friend has—and which Amendment No. 22 seeks to take away—simply puts on a statutory basis the arrangements for forward planning which have existed in nationalised industries for some considerable time. Surely, once a corporate strategy has been drawn up by a nationalised undertaking, my right hon. Friend needs to have some kind of power to ensure that that corporate strategy is carried out. He also needs


to have some kind of powers to follow it up.
I believe that the powers which this Bill seeks to confer upon my right hon. Friend are reasonable. The majority of them are in any case derived from previous nationalisation legislation and many of them are, in particular cases, derived from pieces of Conservative legislation. Having said that I believe that these are excellent reasons for disagreeing with all of these amendments and I urge hon. Members to do so.

Mr. Tom King: As we are starting out on a group of Lords amendments, which are the outcome of considerable detailed consideration by the House of Lords of this extremely controversial Bill, perhaps the House will forgive me if I say a few words about the way in which we shall have to tackle these amendments under the threat of the guillotine and the procedure that it imposes upon us. It is, of course, absolutely intolerable.
Their Lordships gave detailed consideration to the Bill, and if any hon. Members have taken the trouble to study the relevant issues of the House of Lords Hansard, there should be a clue sense of humility in this House with regard to some of the comments made about the quality of their Lordships' debating on some of these issues. Our opportunity in response will be a mere six hours of consideration. Eighty-two amendments have been made to the Bill and have to be disposed of one way or another by debate on a Thursday, with all the problems that that involves for a considerable number of hon. Members.
The Opposition find themselves in an almost impossible situation. Inevitably, we shall be unable to give considered replies on several important matters concerning amendments to which the Government object, purely because of the constraint of time. We shall be able to deal—I believe this to be the only responsible way in which the Opposition can act—merely with the absolutely crucial elements involved.
We confront that problem immediately on this group of seven Lords amendments, all on important points, and shall be able to seek to justify only one, because there is no alternative open to me. I make clear at the outset that that

in no sense derogates from the importance and significance of the other amendments. We are in an intolerable position, and there is no alternative.
To those Government supporters who have gone out of their way to ridicule the Lords as an unelected unqualified Chamber—

Mr. Doug Hoyle: They are.

Mr. King: The hon. Member feels that that is a justification. May I point out to him a rather interesting contrast? I do not know whether he attended any of the debates in the House of Lords on this Bill, but the whole of this measure was carried through, in the main, by one Minister, an unelected, hereditary, old Etonian peer under 30, with no experience of the aviation, shipbuilding or ship-repairing industries. He has done all the work.
I hear hon. Members opposite saying that the whole problem with the House of Lords is that they are all unelected peers, and that it is all the Conservatives' fault. Then I see life peers with a lifetime in the aviation, shipbuilding and ship-owning industries, who have continuously contributed to those industries—not hereditary peers but people who have been appointed by virtue of their achievements—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Like Lord Inchcape.

Mr. King: —by both parties, appointed to the House of Lords—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Running interruptions from a sedentary position spoil debate in this House.

Mr. King: As was established in the Labour Act of 1949, all Members of the House of Lords are entitled, while the law still stands, to make their contribution. But if the Lords are to be attacked for doing so, Labour Members should get their facts right and realise on this occasion how appallingly weak is the ground on which they stand.
On Second Reading of the Bill in the other place, there was only one speaker from the Labour Benches behind the Minister during the whole debate. From all the appointments, all the recent creations and all the Labour life peers,


there was one speaker, and even that one, Lord Shinwell, was opposed to the Bill. No one, by any stretch of the imagination, could call him a hereditary old Etonian backswoodsman Tory peer. Hon. Members will know from the speeches in opposition to the Bill from Lord Shinwell and from Lord Goodman from the Cross Benches that opposition to the Bill is widespread. It has very few friends.
In discussing these amendments we are faced with the difficulty of time. There is one particularly important amendment in this group. It refers to the powers of the Secretary of State to define any additional activities which he considers these corporations should carry out.
4.15 p.m.
We have complained, in Committee and on the Floor of the House, that already one of the difficulties of the Bill is the multiplicity of industries that it covers. Four completely separate industries are covered in the Bill. That has been one of the difficulties experienced by all hon. Members in trying to discuss the Bill. One hon. Member wants to discuss shipbuilding, another wants to discuss aircraft, another wants to discuss the ship repair industry and another is more concerned about marine engineering.
The Bill already contains a measure to nationalise four separate industries, and now it will contain this undefined and unspecified power to widen its scope into any related activities that appear appropriate to the Secretary of State. We sought to delete that power, but by virtue of the situation in this House we were not able to have our way. The House of Lords debated the issue and inserted this amendment, and we believe that it is absolutely right.
Hon. Members have said, and I understand the point, that there cannot be absolute rigidity of boundaries and frontiers within any industrial activity, but they must recognise the other side of the coin. If we are seeking to generate investment in this country—and if the Prime Minister were here I imagine he would say that the the primary purpose of the Government is to concentrate resources into industry and increase investment—we must realise that there will be no investment without confidence, whether it be investment by national or international investors. If all

forms of additional powers of nationalisation in one form or another are left loosely lying around on the statute book, that will be one of the albatrosses that this country will have to carry.
Those who might be willing to invest in areas that may be related to aviation and shipbuilding are worried. They are made aware before they invest in that activity or create a new activity that they could become liable to these powers of the Secretary of State. When they become aware, too, that if the Secretary of State's eye lights on them they could be exposed to the same sort of terms of confiscation as are posed in the Bill, there is a major disincentive—[Interruption.]
If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) does not realise that, he is not getting around as much as he should among industrialists considering investment opportunities. He will know, from his time at the Department of Industry, that it is crucial that this country gets it fair share of international mobile investment. Investment can go in many different directions, particularly now that we are in the Community. The attractions of Germany, Belgium, Holland and France are all taken into account by people considering investment in this field. Often, quite small considerations are the final determinant. In the present situation, we are in no position to say that we can afford extra disadvantages over other countries.
Hon. Members may or may not accept this point, but they ought to think seriously about it if they are worried about employment in their constituencies. The hon. Member for Walton certainly ought to worry about this problem, and ought to give serious consideration to anything that is in the slightest way a disincentive to extra investment in this country, because we all understand and appreciate the appallingly difficult position that that part of the country faces. We ought to give serious consideration to anything that might be included in legislation—no matter how well meaning, even though it is not intended to be used in that way—which can be a threat of this kind. We must ensure that the opportunity for further nationalisation is strictly controlled. Their Lordships were right to make this amendment, and we


shall do all we can to ensure that it is maintained.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: In the absurd timetable situation in which the House has put itself, I feel obliged, for the sake of brevity, to concentrate on one of the amendments, and I should like to explain briefly while I feel the necessity to do so.
In the first place, it is the belief of Liberal Members that when a Government insist on bringing before this House a measure to take over four extremely complicated, and some very sophisticated, industries, they play directly into the hands of the other place. Like most Liberals, I firmly believe that on matters of broad social, economic and foreign policy, the other place has very little title to consideration because of the way it is now composed, being entirely unelected.
I have to admit, however, as did the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) in different terms, that when it comes to being obliged to debate matters of extreme specialisation such as we have before us this afternoon and have had before us all this year in this Bill, there is little likelihood that many hon. Members will be expert or well informed on four such complicated industries, whereas in the Upper House, composed as it is, there is every chance—as has been shown by its debates—that their Lordships will be able to show superior knowledge and have debates of much higher quality than those in which I took a very amateur part in Standing Committee.
If the Government want to show the other place in a good light and to focus upon it a flattering spotlight, they could not do more than bring forward Bills of this type, which put the House of Commons at a great disadvantage, because of the fact that its Members are not elected by virtue of specialised knowledge of this kind while the Upper House is likely to possess such knowledge.

Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about the breadth and expertise of the members of the other place, but would he not agree that, because of its composition, most of those who have the expertise have the expertise also to maintain the status quo because of financial interest in the industries that are being discussed?

Mr. Wainwright: No. Of course, I am not fully informed; so far as I am aware, their Lordships do not have a register of interests. But certainly the distinguished contributions from the Liberal Benches in the other place owed nothing, as far as I know, to financial interests, but stemmed from a lifetime's experience in allied industry, and it is because of the high quality of the contributions of some of my political colleagues there that I want to concentrate on Lords Amendment No. 5.
I should like to underline the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater, that to have six hours in which to deal with the fruits of some high quality debates on four separate industries of great complexity is an absolute parody of democracy. I only hope that the teaching profession will be able to keep alive in its pupils' minds the feeling that there is still some democracy left in Britain in spite of the appalling way in which we conduct proceedings in this House. I do not envy teachers their task of trying to convince children that they still live in a democratic country when the House behaves in this way.
I turn now to Lords Amendment No. 5, to which, reluctantly, I feel I must confine myself. The purpose of this amendment—and for the life of me I cannot see why the Government oppose it; they certainly did not make their opposition clear in the other place—is to put beyond any doubt that there must not be an incestuous relationship between the nationalised airlines of this country and the nationalised aircraft industry.
The history of nationalised industries in this country indicates that it is necessary that the statute should provide very clearly that there must not be incestuous relationships of this kind. There have been regrettable occasions in the past when pressure has been brought to bear upon one nationalised industry to confine itself to purchasing from another.
Here the risk is enormous. If, unfortunately, the new nationalised aircraft industry gets into great difficulty, there will be a tremendous temptation on any Government of whatever political colour, if they have the responsibility for maintaining jobs in the public sector, to insist that the nationalised airlines shall confine their purchases to the products of the Aircraft Corporation.
Therefore, to make quite clear that British airlines shall not be capable of being put under such obligation Lords Amendment No. 5 was agreed to by a substantial majority—more than two to one—in the other place. The Government's reply, urging their Lordships to reject that amendment, contained nothing whatever of substance. If there is some objection to the amendment, I hope that we shall hear better reasons from the Government Front Bench this afternoon.
I hope that consideration will be given to the amendment, if only to reassure the British public that the Bill will not produce yet another racket in high places where the commercial freedom and the enterprise of one organisation is crippled in the alleged interests of another.

Mr. Peter Walker: When the Minister was speaking on these amendments he rightly mentioned from time to time the various powers that this would give to his right hon. Friend. Let me make a comment upon that procedure as somebody who in the last Conservative Government—first, as Secretary of State for the Environment and then as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—was the Minister referred to and who had responsibility for most of the industries that are currently nationalised. I say this in a constructive sense because I think there are fundamental problems with nationalisation. I found as Secretary of State in those Departments that I had considerable powers over those nationalised industries.
How can one exercise those powers in the best interests of the nation? I certainly do not think that anyone could accuse me during that period of being hostile to the nationalised industries. I introduced the Coal Industry Act 1973, which injected a great deal of capital into the industry. I approved the modernisation of the steel industry on a massive scale. I wanted both of those nationalised industries to succeed in exactly the same way as the Labour Party will want those two new Corporations to succeed.
What are the limitations that nationalisation imposes? First, there is the problem of recruiting the most able men to run the industries. The number of such men is limited. British industry in any sphere has great difficulty in attracting high-calibre management. The

competition for high-calibre management is international, as we can see from any of the Sunday newspapers with their massive advertisements for jobs abroad and at home.
During the period when I was a Minister I had the task of replacing—not because I was sacking but because I was replacing—the chairmen of those nationalised industries. Some of them were not my first choice. One was my fourteenth choice because 13 had turned the job down. What one can offer higher calibre management is limited. The first difficulty is the quality of the nationalised industries in terms of top management because one is competing with the private sector where the offers are not limited.
4.30 p.m.
What does the Minister mean when he talks of his right hon. Friend's powers? If his right hon. Friend was going to exercise those powers positively and constructively, there would have to be one Secretary of State for each corporation. There is the support of the Civil Service. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was also in this Department. I think that he would share my respect for the calibre of the civil servants in that Department.
But neither of us could say that they were the men that we would necessarily appoint to take decisions of great quality over the major industries. That is no reflection on them; they are highly able and dedicated men. What we ask under nationalisation is several layers of ability to make judgments, whereas in this country we have hardly enough people to provide one layer. Theoretically, there is the industry itself, then the sponsoring Department, and beyond that the little institution called the Treasury. If any major expenditure or capital investment comes up, the Treasury quickly takes an interest.
I told the chairmen whom I appointed that I would interfere with them as little as possible, but within hours of their appointment I was interfering because various policies—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."]. I had no desire to do so; it was due to the very basis of nationalisation itself. Because the Minister has responsibility on prices, profit margins and investment programmes which the country expects him to exercise, he is constantly called upon to interfere.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: This is a very interesting point. Is it not therefore important that in the statutes affecting the running of nationalised industries the Minister's intervention powers should be strictly defined so as to protect not only the Minister but the chairmen concerned?

Mr. Walker: I understand that but, no matter how strictly defined the Minister's role is, the very basics of investment programmes, wages and prices policy and appointment of managers are ultimately his responsibility. If all sorts of other spheres were limited but a nationalised industry were seemingly not performing very well, the first pressure on the Minister would he to get rid of that board and bring in some new able people.

Mr. Eric S. Helier: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is fascinating. He is right—this is a serious problem—but would he not agree that the time has come to throw away the book of the great and the good and begin to find able people in middle management who do not get the opportunities? Ministers have no idea of their existence. Should we not therefore consider revising the way in which we do this?

Mr. Walker: I have sympathy with that view. In appointments to nationalised industries and elsewhere, I tried to find a new list. Among other avenues, I asked trade union leaders for lists of talented people whom they would like to join Government bodies. But it is difficult to compose such a list.
One of the great problems with these powers is that the Secretary of State is a busy man with a range of considerable duties. The amount of time that he can concentrate upon any of these corporations is very limited. But with him rests a great deal of power; he faces the accusing finger when any of these corporations goes wrong. He is the person who is questioned in the House, has to answer debates and is criticised for bad appointments. I can understand the Socialist view that nationalisation is necessary in order to redistribute or direct wealth, but I genuinely believe—I say this in no partisan spirit—that our concept of nationalisation and Ministers' powers to date, which continues in this Bill, has

proved basically ineffective even for the purposes of the Labour Party.
Therefore, to endanger potential investment at this stage—the transfer of nationalisation endangers investment in the industry itself—by going over to a system in which the Minister in reality has little power means that we are seeking three layers of interference in management when we find it difficult enough to obtain one. It is a tragedy to pursue this concept, and I hope that all hon. Members will think carefully and constructively about overcoming some of the basic weaknesses of the nationalisation system itself.

Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said that we should devote more time to the "considered" Lords amendments. These Lords amendments were not considered at all. They are amendments deliberately designed to wreck the Bill, to take the guts out of the Bill. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are muttering. Do they deny that if we accepted this amendment, the Bill would contain no date for taking the aircraft industry into public ownership and that we should not be able to take in warship building or ship repairing? If that is not disembowelling the Bill I do not know what is.
The hon. Member spoke as though the other place was a democratic Chamber when we know that its composition is roughly 300 active Tories, 40 Liberals, 170 Cross-Benchers and 140 Labour peers. It does not matter how much the Labour peers take part in debates, they know what the result will be. The other place has a built-in Conservative majority. Whatever Labour peers do, the result will be the same.
The hon. Member and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) said that the peers have a great deal of knowledge of these industries. The Conservative peers certainly have an interest in the industries concerned. Most of them have a financial interest, which they rightly admitted. They are not the right people to examine a measure like this. Their minds are already made up—not only because of their age but because of their experience and financial interest in these companies. Therefore, these matters are not being given the attention that they


should have from people with no vested interest.
I was rather alarmed by the speech of the hon. Member for Colne Valley, whom I have always regarded as a fair and generous man. What he said about democracy being in danger does not help us at all. He knows that democracy is not in danger. But the constitution may be in danger because of those members of the House of Lords who are holding up the will of the Commons. The hon. Gentleman went part way to admitting that they are not elected, that they are there purely because they are hereditary or life peers.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree in the light of our proceedings last night that it is a little premature of him to assume what the will of this Chamber will be? Would he not permit himself a little doubt? Until the doors are locked and the votes counted, how can he know the will of this House?

Mr. Hoyle: It is always true that there may be some Pauls on the road to Damascus. I do not deny that. Nevertheless, last night was a strange reflection of democracy, because the two hon. Members concerned had the opportunity previously to do what they did last night. It is rather strange that they waited until the Bill came back from the unelected Chamber, when they knew the Government would be in difficulty. They both voted for it on previous occasions. But that is for them to answer, and, of course, they are free to do whatever they like.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley made great play with the Liberal amendment, which says that nothing should preclude British Airways and other British airlines from seeking supplies of civil aircraft, including engines and ancillary equipment from other sources. I do not think this amendment is necessary. Unfortunately, we have nothing to offer at all in this country in the way of long range aircraft. Maybe the blame should rest on this and previous Governments, or on our airframe and aeroengine manufacturers. In this Bill we are trying to ensure that we have an aircraft industry, either on its own or in co-operation with other countries, which can offer aircraft

needed in the future. I do not think that it is necessary to write in an amendment like the Liberal one.
Very often in the past when the airframe industry and aero-engine industry, which were not publicly owned, were given large amounts of public money for ventures developed by the private sector, pressure was put on British Airways to order British. There was nothing wrong with that kind of pressure when a great deal of public money had gone into these ventures. These were fine aircraft and they needed a home market if they were to be successful in the world outside. But, having taken that into account, there should be a right for British Airways to buy foreign if this country cannot offer something suitable.
What really alarms me about the amendment is the restrictive nature of the kind of clamps which would be put on the corporations in their developments. They should be unrestricted to pursue developments to the end without going back to private enterprise. No restrictions at all should be put on them, because we want them to be viable and successful.
Other amendments were made in this direction by the Lords who, if they were not trying to disembowel the Bill, were certainly trying to place considerable restrictions on the corporations. That is not the right way to go about this. If these corporations are to be a success and we are to have a viable aircraft industry, this is the wrong way forward.
The Secretary of State is quite right to say that he cannot accept the amendments from the Lords because they are designed to put restrictions on the activities of the corporations and to hive off to private enterprise profitable sectors of the industry which should remain in the public sector.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In Committee there was some discussion about the future framework of the nationalised industries but I am not sure that at the end of the day we formed any coherent view. Some proposals before us today would give too much Government power over the range of activities of the nationalised industries. It is difficult for any Government to decide how much intervention should be


made into organisations set up to be basically independent and capable of functioning on their own. If a Government interfere too much, this hinders opportunities for developing managerial and other talents to the full. If an organisation does not get the best people, its growth capability is lessened.
Lords Amendment No. 6 seeks to restrict the corporation from developing other lines of activity. There is some safeguard written into the Bill as it stands providing that the Secretary of State for Industry and the Department must give some general supervision of expansions of that nature. Private corporations have certain limitations on their operations written in to their memoranda or articles of association. But these are drafted so widely that the corporations concerned are quite capable of getting into other lines of activity, either directly or through subsidiary companies.
Therefore I think that Lords Amendment No. 6 is unduly restrictive, and its terms would fetter the two corporations. Accordingly it is likely that my hon. Friends and I will support the Government on that amendment if it comes to the vote.
The so-called Liberal amendment is, I believe, redundant. If there is to be any amendment here, is an amendment of the Aviation Acts to give certain additional powers to British Airways not to be tied to the British Aerospace Corporation in terms of purchasing requirements. I do not think that this sort of restriction should be written into the Bill. Even if the amendment were carried, I cannot see that it would be capable of being implemented.
As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) said, there are many limitations on the composition of the British aerospace industry at present. In future, whether it be in private or public hands, it may have to operate in combination with American or European firms. The Minister of State has spent considerable time during the last few months visiting French and ther European manufacturers and he has been in contact with the major American airframe companies. On these grounds, this particular amendment would meet with opposition.
It has been said that the House of Lords sought to disembowel certain Bills

produced by the present Government. After last night, I think that it is more a case of the Government trying to commit hari kiri than anything else.

Mr. William Small: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) spoke about incest in relation to these amendments. I do not know how much he knows about the lives of Dostoyevsky and Torgenev, but that was their favourite activity.
The hon. Gentleman was speaking about the extension of activities outside this country. These are meant to be home-spun activities and the members of the Corporations had better be home-spun men looking after the jobs, welfare and activities of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries of this country.
However, there is nothing to prohibit them, after consultation with the Minister, from going overseas for materials and engines if they must. It is not necessary to write that provision into the Bill. These industries do not require legal apostrophes to justify their right to take certain action.

Mr. John Cope: My disagreement with the Bill flows from my concern that these industries depend for their lives on success against tough world competition. The Bill will result in their decisions being distorted by political considerations.
As an example, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), speaking in an earlier debate on this Bill about Bristol Channel Ship Repairers and the concern about employment there, said:
I am convinced also that the best guarantee for the continuance of the company at least at its present level is the political muscle of South Wales MPs. That has been demonstrated by the fight over the South Wales ports."—[Official Report, 28th July 1976; Vol. 916, c. 698.]
Hon. Members from the Bristol area know about the political muscle of South Wales Members in relation to ports, and I do not want that sort of thing to extend to the aircraft industry on which we depend very much in our part of the country.
Much of this political distortion of decisions flows from the powers of interference of the Secretary of State. That is why I support my hon. Friends in opposing the Government's motion.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) referred to intervention by Ministers and seemed to suggest that it was almost exclusively intervention by Labour Ministers. This is nonsense. The intervention by Conservative Ministers has been much deeper in many industries than that of Labour Ministers.

Mr. Cope: I did not mean to give that impression and I had the honour of working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) when he was Secretary of State at the time to which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) is referring.

Mr. Palmer: The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) had a considerable reputation for intervention, though I am not sure that all his interventions were of the wisest kind.
I can understand the Opposition not liking nationalisation but, given the fact of nationalisation, why do they in their amendments here and in another place attempt to restrict the operations of nationalised corporations? Life changes and evolves and we must not fossilise industries by over-detailed legislative provisions at a particular time.
One of the difficulties with nationalised industries, especially my own—the electricity supply industry—is that they have been put in a straitjacket of legislation and have been unable to change fast enough with changing times and conditions. The Opposition's attempt to limit narrowly the operations of nationalised industries seems commercially very foolish.
However, I wish to add a few words to the cogent remarks made by the right hon. Member for Worcester based on his own experience. I agree that it is difficult to find the right people to run nationalised industries at the top. There are four ways in which it is usually done and patronage exercised.
First, there is the self-perpetuation method by which those who are retiring recommend their successors. This was done on a fairly wide scale in the past at any rate.
Secondly, Ministers consult civil servants and this means that ambitious men get to know civil servants, not in a corrupt

sense, but to attract their notice so that their names may be mentioned to the Minister when a vacancy occurs.
The third source of patronage, and in many ways the most honourable, is the increasing tendency of Ministers to consult trade unions about appointments. Why not? The employee interest is fundamental. But here again the ambitious men get close to trade union leaders in the hope that their names if unknown will go before Ministers that way or be confirmed as suitable if known already.
Fourthly, there is the direct political appointment. A person who has given distinguished or often undistinguished service to the State or Government is whisked away and made chairman of a public corporation to everybody's astonishment. This is a very doubtful method and the right hon. Member for Worcester made one or two unfortunate appointments in that field. I shall mention no names.
Nearly all the Lords amendments are the wrong amendments. In my experience the only right amendments have been those which, from time to time, I have been bold enough to put down myself. I found those amendments very encouraging.
An obvious way of choosing someone to run a nationalised industry at the top—I do not know why it has not been tried—is to advertise the post in the newspapers and elsewhere. It would be easy to set up a selection panel of knowledgeable and disinterested people to interview applicants, who should be paid the going commercial or trade union rate for the job when they secure it. In that way we might get higher quality people and sounder, more welcome and better understood administration of nationalised industries.

Mr. Ron Thomas: It has rightly been said that Lords Amendment No. 6 is an attempt to put the Corporations into a straitjacket. Taken with all the other amendments, it is a clear attempt by the House of Lords to wreck the Bill completely. If the amendments were passed, there would be no Bill left.
We discussed in Committee the right of the aerospace and shipbuilding


industries to diversify. A number of us tabled an amendment which would have given far more opportunity to the boards concerned to diversify and to utilise more effectively the skills and creative energy of those who work in the industries. We even felt that the way in which diversification was set out in the Bill was too restrictive. The Tories, understandably, wanted to restrict the activities of the Corporations. Having failed to do that in Committee, they have now got their Friends in the House of Lords to attempt to do the job for them.
5.0 p.m.
We argued that the British aerospace industry, under public ownership, must be allowed to diversify. This touches on what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) said. The aerospace industry is kept going by public funds. But for subvention from public funds, it would have collapsed a long time ago.
Important research and development is taking place in the industry, financed out of public funds. One has only to look at the appendices to the Plowden Report to see the considerable amount of technological fall-out from that research and development. More often than not, the resulting new processes, ideas and materials, though paid for out of public funds, are exploited by private enterprise, or they are exploited not in this country at all but overseas.
Such an industry, receiving considerable public funds, undertaking research and development and standing at the frontier of technological advance, is always producing new ideas, projects, processes and materials. It should have every opportunity to exploit markets for its new ideas without being inhibited. Many of us feel that the Bill itself is too restrictive. But we know quite well that if the Tories had their way they would put these industries in a straitjacket.

Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) and I have crossed swords on this several times. En justifying the phraseology used in this part of the Bill, the Minister said that much of the drafting related to previous nationalisation statutes. Inevitably, we

were reminded that the Gas Act was a Conservative enactment and that we would find similar clauses in the two measures.
The Government seem unable to grasp the difference between the types of industries subject to nationalisation in the past and the two industries that are now to be subject to nationalisation. There is a world of difference between virtual monopoly commodity industries, such as gas, electricity, coal and the railways, and those which the Government now wish to take into public ownership, such as the profit-making aircraft corporations. I see enormous differences.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West finds it difficult to appreciate the fears we have that this new Aerospace Corporation will be regarded as a cuckoo in the nest by the aerospace industry. All the avionics and components companies which have been making a tremendous contribution to exports for the United Kingdom will wonder exactly what a future Secretary of State will do if he invokes subsection (5) which states that
activities which the Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries are to carry on, either in addition to the activities specified in subsections (1) and (2) above or in substitution for such of those activities as may be specified in the order".
It means that the Secretary of State can decide to extend the activities. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West has already said—he was disarmingly frank—that the subsection was too restrictive, and that he would like to see it much more widely drawn.
This only confirms that our fears and the fears of the avionics and components companies are well founded. Despite the protestations that the Minister is bound to make when he winds up the debate, when any difficulty occurs, such as the shortage of employment, the Aerospace Corporation's activities will be specifically extended.
My constituents who work in the BAC factory'in Weybridge are less worried'about diversification and more worried about the Minister of State's recent announcement, reported in an American publication called "Aviation Week", that the British Government have decided not to back the


proposed BAC XII project, which involves BAC 111 technology. The Minister is quoted as saying that this was
because it was too late in the day to he a collaborative venture.
I hope that when the Minister replies to this part of the debate he will be able to reassure my constituents that the Government are still actively considering the BAC X11. My constituents are more concerned about that employment opportunity than about diversification.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): This has been a short but interesting debate. The one thing that strikes anybody who has been associated with the Bill for some time is that most of the speeches from the Opposition are the same. To use economist's jargon, I would say that the long-run marginal cost of producing such speeches is near zero. They are nothing but hand-me-down speeches. They were made on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report here and again in another place. This part of the Bill could have provided an opportunity for another place to prove that it could be a revising Chamber and that it had a genuine role to fulfil. Unfortunately, we have had the same old tired arguments. They did not impress me any more today than they did when I first heard them.
Opposition Members and their Lordships have endeavoured to shackle the industries before they come into existence. They have tried to hem them in and restrict them even before they start. Having placed these restrictions around the new Corporations, they will then complain for ever and a day that the Corporations are not doing enough and are not efficient. It does not make sense. If the Corporations are to be successful and fluorishing they must be enabled to respond to new initiatives, challenges and economic developments in the same way as companies in the private sector.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman has only just come in, and I do not want to delay the House. I would rather make my own speech. What we have done is to find the most appropriate and the best

legislative framework in which we can enable these two corporations to respond to new challenges and initiatives as they come along. That is what we are trying to do with this part of the Bill, and that is what these amendments try to prevent my right hon. Friend from doing. We want to enable the two new corporations to be able to respond flexibly and at the same time to have the appropriate degree of public accountability. I think that that is what we have done in these provisions.

Mr. Nelson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Huckfield: It is a bit much to ask the House to listen to interventions by an hon. Member who has not been in the Chamber for this debate and who suddenly appears on the scene asking the Minister to give way.

Mr. Nelson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw it to your attention, at least, that I have been in the Chamber for about half an hour, although I have not been seated in my present position for the whole of that time? That may be an oversight on the Minister's part, and perhaps he will apologise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): That is not a point of order. I was aware that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) had been in the Chamber for a considerable time and had recently moved his seat.

Mr. Huckfield: I do not need my glasses for distance purposes, and I know that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) came into the Chamber half an hour ago. However, this debate began one hour and 10 minutes ago.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) made the point that, in their memoranda and articles of association, companies in the private sector had pretty far and wide-ranging provisions. Of course, we feel that we need to enable these two corporations to be able to respond in the same way. As my hon. Friends the Members for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) and Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) said, we want to allow these corporations, when the occasion arises, to be able to respond flexibly in


the same way that companies in the private sector can. However, we have to provide for accountability.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) complained about statutes and clauses laying around all over the statute book. It is precisely because we want to provide for public accountability that we include provisions like this in the Bill. When the hon. Gentleman complains that there are powers left lying around all over the place, I hope that he recognises that we ought to have public acountability and that my right hon. Friend and this House should be able to talk about some of these activities of the two corporations. That is why we have these provisions in the Bill.
I think that we have got the right mix to enable a flexible response on the part of the Corporations while still enabling my right hon. Friend and this House to be able to monitor and adjudicate on the performances of these two corporations.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) does not seem to want us to discuss these matters at all. That is a little sad, because in many ways he played a valuable part in our Committee deliberations.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) complained about the short time that we had. I recall the great pile of Committee debates which the hon. Member for Bridgwater brought into the Chamber earlier this afternoon. That in itself shows that this is one of the longest running discussions that we have had on any piece of legislation to have come before this House.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley talked about the relationship between British Aerospace and British Airways. He knows that British Aerospace will be a nationalised corporation. British Airways is a nationalised corporation. Both are or will be free-standing, nationalised statutory independent corporations, and they will have the arm's-length relationship which normally exists between independent free-standing nationalised corporations.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the epithet "free-standing" is appropriate when this Bill is littered with provisions for the Secretary of State to intervene and to give

directions? Is that his concept of "freestanding"?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman has read this piece of legislation. He should not interpret my right hon. Friend's powers in that way, bearing in mind the assurances given time after time in Committee.
There is no need for the insertion that the hon. Gentleman seeks to put into the Bill. There is no need for the amendment, because there is nothing in this piece of legislation that enables him to construe that the amendment which he seeks to retain is necessary. There is nothing in the legislation that would compel British Airways in the way that he thinks it would.
The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) made a very interesting speech. It reflected the long and substantial experience that he had as a Minister in my Department. It was a pity that he did not mention some of the newer forms of administration that have been developed, and I wish very much that he had touched more on industrial democracy, because we feel that the provision about industrial democracy in the Bill is a far-reaching and wide-ranging one, of considerable significance.
When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the relationship between the Secretary of State, his advisers, the chairman and the board, I hope that he will realise that in respect of these two Corporations the powers that these provisions will convey upon my right hon. Friend are no greater, and in many ways are smaller, than the powers that he himself had and which his predecessors acquired in respect of Rolls-Royce 1971, simply by becoming sole shareholder. In fact, the Companies Acts did for him in that case what in the case of a public corporation has to be done specifically in this legislation. I hope that he will recognise that what he says about these sections of this legislation applies to cases where he was involved, which did not apply to nationalisation in the same way.
Let me say again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) said, that we do not want to place either of these two corporations in a straitjacket. My hon. Friend made some


useful comments on the way that we want these two corporations to operate.
I end as I began. I think that we are enabling these two corporations to respond to changing economic situations and new initiatives in a flexible way. At the same time, we are providing for public accountability and providing in a reasonable way for my right hon. Friend to be able to exert his influence and to have his degree of control. For that reason, I hope that I can now ask the House to reject this Lords amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 2 disagreed to.

Clause 2

GENERAL DUTIES OF THE CORPORATIONS

Lords Amendment No. 3 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 4, line 6, after "weapons" insert
and of space vehicles and systems",

Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Amendment made to the proposed Lords amendment, to leave out "and systems".—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 5 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 4, line 24, leave out subsections (5) to (7).

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Kaufman]:—

The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 293.

[For Division List 397 see col. 767]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 5, line 11, after "form" insert
in which all employees have the right to participate.".

5.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 8, 9. 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 and 21.

Mr. Kaufman: There are three strands to these amendments. Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, 20 and 21 all aim to undermine the position of independent and recognised unions by assigning rights in industrial democracy to all employees with no effective means of exercising them, and by giving so-called representative organisations the same right to be consulted that we believe should be confined to unions which meet the criteria for independence established by recent legislation and which are recognised by the two Corporations.
This approach is contrary to our general policy on proper employee representation. We have made it clear repeatedly that we regard independent and recognised unions as the organisations best suited to represent the interests of all employees. It is for this reason that we expect them to play a special part in consultations and the development of industrial democracy.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) is not present, because I thought that he made an extremely interesting and constructive contribution to our last debate and I would have liked to point out to him that in this Bill we are seeking to remedy some of the failings in the way in which all Governments have approached public ownership by introducing into a statute for the first time the concept of industrial democracy and making arrangements for its promotion, so that workers are involved in decision-making in public enterprise.
We believe that we should build on the strength of the workers as workers in their trade unions. Of course we believe that all employees have the right to participate in consultations and industrial democracy, just as all employees have the right to be members of trade unions. The trade union movement provides a means of participation, whereas the amendments made in another place confer rights but without any practical means of exercising them.
These objections have particular force in relation to Lords Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 15, 18 and 21. We have had representations from the employees in both


industries who are not members of unions at present recognised by employers in the industry and who very understandably want to participate in the consultations on industrial democracy under Clause 2, on organisation under Clause 5, on machinery for settling terms and conditions of employment under Clause 6, and on the corporate plan under Clause 7. We understand this, and we very much hope that these people will make their full contribution to these industries.
None the less, we do not believe that it would be in the interest of either the employees or the industry to accept these amendments. They would cut across the Government's policy on collective bargaining and proper employee representation which we believe to be in the best interests of all employees. The practical effect of the amendments would not be great, since a Corporation is most unlikely not to recognise a union which it considers represents a substantial proportion of employees. The wording fails to take account of current legislation and could lead to each corporation facing a difficult industrial relations problem without providing any means of solving it. Our provisions, which are in line with general Government policy on these questions, do provide a means of resolving disputes between rival groups claiming to represent employees. Under our provisions any such disagreement which could not be resolved by the corporations and those involved would be considered by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Services.
I should like to say just a brief word about Lords Amendments Nos. 14 and 20. Although without these amendments the only organisations which the Corporations would be required to consult are independent and recognised unions, of course this requirement does not prevent the Corporations from consulting any individual or organisation whom they consider may be able to make a constructive and useful contribution. I know that they will want to draw fully on the relevant expertise of the professional organisations, since the skills they represent are vital to both these industries. The Corporations can do this as appropriate under the terms of the Bill as drafted. But there would be a num-

ber of problems involved in requiring them to do so.
First, there is a technical problem of definition—there would be a considerable debate about which organisations the Corporation was expected to consult, and disagreements could lead to delays and create difficulties for both parties involved, as well as actually impeding the course of the consultations. Moreover, Clauses 5 and 7 are directed primarily at those who work in the industries. These amendments could have the effect of giving equal rights to organisations of which only a small part were directly involved in the industries.
The case that I have just made for adopting our approach and rejecting that reflected in these amendments is one that has been put at every stage of this Bill. The arguments that I have advanced are now very familiar ones. Hon. Members have accepted them before, and on the same grounds. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon Members have accepted them in their votes. The Standing Committee accepted these arguments whenever it had to make decisions upon them. The House, on Report, accepted them when they were put to it. I obviously do not suggest that every Member accepts the arguments, but I do not think that any individual Member, however distinguished he may be, would arrogate to himself the right to be called "the House". [Interruption.] The composition of the House has changed. No doubt we shall be testing that composition at the end of the debate. All I am saying is that the arguments I have advanced have been accepted before. I have not said that they will be accepted this evening. We hope that they will, but we must wait and see. Hon. Gentlemen opposite really must read what I said. I did not go beyond what has happened in the past. I make recommendations to the House about what should happen when we conclude the debate, but that is a different matter and we shall see how things go. However, I would most strongly urge the House to disagree with this set of amendments.
With regard to Amendment No. 10, the Secretary of State made clear during Report stage in this House that it would not be appropriate to require the courts


to adjudicate on industrial democracy. Therefore, when we decided that it was important to underline our commitment to industrial democracy by imposing on the Corporations a positive duty to promote it in a strong and organic form, we had to ensure that this duty was not enforceable by proceedings before a court of law. The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) may giggle when I say that. He had the opportunity, along with other Members of the Opposition parties, to make representations to the Government in private consultations.
I wrote to all the minority parties represented on the Standing Committee. The representatives of the Liberal Party and the SNP discussed these matters seriously with me The Conservative Opposition did not even reply to the letter that I sent them, because of the scorn they feel for involving workers in decision-making and for the very concept of industrial democracy. The Liberal and Scottish National Parties may well differ from the Government in their views about the way in which industrial democracy should be implemented, but they did not have scorn for the concept. Indeed the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) brought along a most detailed proposal about the way in which he felt it should be implemented. The Conservative Opposition have no right whatever even to intervene in this debate, because they have shown no interest in the problem.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford) rose—

Mr. Kaufman: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman had his opportunity to consult. He could not be bothered, because he is not interested in workers and their rôle in industry. But the rest of the House—the Labour Party and the other non-Tory parties have shown that they are interested in these matters.
As a result of that consultation we inserted into the Bill provisions for industrial democracy and also the subsection that the Lords amendment removes. The subsection applies to all the duties imposed by Clause 2, and not just to the duty to promote industrial democracy because we wished to follow the precedent of the Iron and Steel Act 1949 as revived by the Iron and Steel Act 1967.
Some concern was expressed by their Lordships about this subsection and the effect on such questions as patent law and the rights of inventors. I think it would be helpful if I explained to the House that the fears expressed in another place are groundless. This subsection provides merely that nothing in Clause 2 shall be construed as imposing upon either Corporation, directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court. I can assure hon. Members that the subsection does not in any way touch on any duty or liability which a Corporation may have by reason of anything else in the Bill; by reason of anything in any other enactment; by reason of anything in any other branch of law; or by reason of anything in any agreement to which it may be a party. If a person has a claim against a Corporation arising, for example, out of the law relating to patents or out of the law relating to confidential information, that person will not be able to rely on anything in Clause 2. But, equally, nothing in Clause 2 will get in his way.
I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will accept that this precedented subsection does not affect individual rights but rather is important if we are to avoid placing an improper burden on the courts.
5.45 p.m.
Finally, Amendment No. 19 was passed by their Lordships without discussion after the mover had mistakenly claimed that two identical amendments previously debated had been passed on a Division. There had been no such Division, because the earlier amendments had not been moved. That is an interesting reflection on the rationality and orderliness of debates in another place.
We prefer the more direct form "to consult", for two reasons. First, we want this requirement to be very clear, and not to permit of any coyness. Secondly, we think it is better for the Bill to be consistent. Throughout the Bill and throughout previous legislation, there are obligations, for instance, on the Secretary of State to consult the Corporations, or the Chairman, or it is specified that the Secretary of State may do something only after consultation with the Corporations. This amendment would also compound inconsistency further, because the Corporations


would be obliged to seek consultation with the trade unions in the context of Clause 7 and to consult them in the context of other clauses.
I urge hon. Members to reject this amendment, as well as all the others in this group, for the reasons I have given.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I would accept at once the validity of the points which the Minister of State makes, but not his conclusion on the reason why I did not arrange to discuss with him the issue of worker democracy involved in this legislation. I did not do so for three reasons. The first was because my preoccupation was to ensure that this legislation does not reach the statute book. I am opposed to this legislation from start to finish and my preoccupation has been to ensure that it did not become the law of the land.
My second preoccupation was because the views of the Government are totally clear. There is no flexibility, room for manoeuvre or meaningful discussions about an issue of this sort. The consultations were, therefore, nothing but a public relations exercise and I was not prepared to become part of that. If we had wished to discuss the matter, which I did in Committee, there was plenty of opportunity.
The third reason is borne out by the efforts that were doubtless made by the representatives of the Liberal and Scottish National Parties. They will have discovered that the provisions on industrial democracy in the legislation have not changed one whit as a result of the considerable thought and effort they will have made in the course of the dialogue. The reality is that the Government had made up their mind about the form of industrial democracy in the legislation and there was nothing that anyone on the Opposition Benches could do to make a significant contribution. I have sat as long as anyone on the Opposition Benches in Committee opposing this legislation—long enough to have a fairly clear idea of how much flexibility is contained in Government's attitude.

Mr. Edward Gardener: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the Government took notice of industrial democracy in its true meaning they would have taken note of the wishes of the workers of the British Aircraft Corporation and dropped the Bill forthwith?

Mr. Heseltine: Yes, of course. My hon. and learned Friend is perfectly right, but his argument extends beyond the interests of the workers of the British Aircraft Industry. The whole country would reject this legislation out of hand.
The main point that I wish to make is a simple one. The Minister of State has used familiar jargon to describe what he referred to as the undermining of democracy, cutting across the whole concept of collective bargaining, and prejudicing the interests of the workers in securing a proper rôle in the destiny of those companies.
Those words will have a sympathetic hearing on the Government Benches opposite particularly amongst the vast majority of hon. Members who have no idea of the content of the amendment that we are debating. In order to help those hon. Gentlemen, perhaps I may quote the words that the amendment would introduce into the Bill. It would add one line to the following three lines:
In carrying out its functions under this Act, it shall be the duty of each Corporation to promote industrial democracy in a strong and organic form".
That is the legislation as presently drafted. The amendment, which is the trigger amendment to this group reads:
in which all employees have the right to participate.
That is all we are debating in the trigger amendment. That is the amendment which is described by the Minister of State as undermining our whole approach to industrial democracy and cutting across the rights of workers in collective negotiation.
Perhaps I may go back a little in the history of this issue. In the last decade the whole question of industrial relations legislation was a source of great controversy, and Governments of both parties came to the conclusion that it was necessary to legislate to bring trade unions within the law of the land. That was the broad conclusion both of the Labour Government of the late 1960s—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the last occasion when the trade unions were out-with the law of the land?

Mr. Heseltine: That is not relevant to my point. I am saying that Governments


of both parties within the last decade came to the conclusion that it was necessary to introduce a comprehensive legislative framework within which—[Interruption.] I do not want controversy over the language. I used the words which I intended to use. It was the considered judgment of the Cabinet and the Shadow Cabinet of both parties that we should have a comprehensive range of legislation dealing with trade unions. That decision within the Labour Party was frustrated by internal pressures within the party, but the Conservative Party introduced that legislation and put it on the statute book. That Act was repealed by the Labour Government when they came to power. That is a factual analysis of the history which is not controversial.
The Labour Government then introduced a new Industrial Relations Bill, which was enacted. The Labour Government introduced that legislation, considered it and argued it through the House and the Lords, and it is their total responsibility. I could give endless quotations to support the view that under that legislation the intention was that groups of people should have the opportunity to prove to an independent inquiry set up under the mechanism of the Act that they were independent organisations representing employees. All hon. Members sitting on the Government Benches voted for that legislation.
Shortly afterwards, groups of workers decided that they wanted to take advantage of Labour's Industrial Relations Act, and they organised themselves. Thousands of workers in the principle companies in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries organised themselves into unions which were considered and approved according to the mechanism set up by the Labour Government. They claimed to be substantial, representative organisations in accordance with the law of the land enacted by the Labour Government. Those are the groups of people who are described by the Minister of State as being against the best interests of collective bargaining and undermining worker democracy. That is what he told the House this afternoon, and that is why the wording embraced in the amendment is unacceptable to the Government. There has been pressure within the

Labour Party to frustrate the developing movement within that legislation for independent staff associations to get recognition.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Scab unions.

Mr. Heseltine: I know how the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) feels about this matter. To him they are scab unions. I am not trying to suggest that every group of people will always try to do their best for the companies or organisations they represent. Of course not. Therefore, I admire a concept which gives independence to an outside organisation to approve or not to approve such groups of people. But if a group has been approved, by what right does the Minister of State cynically attack the work that has been done? How is it that at the Dispatch Box the Minister of State can dismiss those organisations which were created under Labour's legislation as "so-called" representative organisations?

Mr. Kaufman: I fear the hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding the position. What I have adhered to throughout the discussions on the Bill—sometimes to the disagreement of my hon. Friends—is that the "relevant trade unions" as defined in the Bill should have the right to consultation. The hon. Gentleman and his noble Friends are seeking to extend that right beyond relevant trade unions to bodies which are unrepresentative and entirely worthless.
For example, there was a report last week in the Financial Times of a number of organisations in this industry which have been refused certification. ACAS said that it opposed an application on the ground that the staff association was not economically viable and that it was liable to be influenced, if not dominated, by management. It was pointed out that the Hatfield members paid subscriptions of only 10p per week and that the Hum association had only 38 members. Those are the organisations I am dealing with that are not relevant trade unions within the meaning of the legislation.

Mr. Heseltine: The Minister misses the point. His organisation exists to judge whether the groups of people are genuine and representative. My complaint is not


that some should be rejected but that those which have already secured independent recognition are not recognised. That is the essence of it. The organisations that have obtained certificates of independence under the Labour legislation have as much right to be heard as any other representative organisation.
Those organisations have asked to meet the Secretary of State for Employment so that their views may be heard. They went through the mechanism, obtained their certificate of independence and asked, on behalf of their thousands of members, to put their views to the Secretary of State for Employment. I quote the last sentence of the Secretary of State's letter rejecting that application for a meeting:
We have not yet reached any conclusions as to what needs to be done to remedy the situation which is developing, and I do not therefore think that a further meeting with myself or my officials would be helpful to you in this respect.
The implications of that letter are that the conclusions have already been reached, that it is too late for influence to be brought to bear and that a meeting might be possible to pass on the conclusions that have already been reached. That was the letter of the Secretary of State for Employment. Anyone who believes that that letter can be squared with the concept of democracy as I understand it has no concept of what the word means.
6.0 p.m.
This most discredited Government in contemporary times must now understand that they are representing not the interests of workers or the interests of people at large but the narrow sectional interests of unions that subscribe to the Labour Party. It seems that unions which do not belong to that special group have no rights, while those who do have every right. That is what the debate is all about and let us understand that. No amount of misrepresentation by the Minister of State, no jargon or misrepresenative language will hide the fact that thousands of men and women have decided to go their own way, and that is deeply resented by the Government.

Mr. Stan Thorne: It is surprising to hear the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) talk about democracy and the hon. Member for Colne

Valley (Mr. Wainwright) advise us on how we should teach our children about democracy. I find it difficult to equate democracy with the things that have been done by the Conservative and Liberal Parties throughout the century.
When we turn to the Lords amendments we are reminded yet again that their Lordships have no understanding of industrial relations in Britain today. The class represented in another place has always used working people as a media for exploitation in the production of goods within a capitalist society. That is all that they have ever understood about working people. They regard them as tools of production within a capitalist society.

Mr. George Younger: Mr. George Younger (Ayr) rose—

Mr. Thorne: No, I have only just begun. I listened to the hon. Member for Henley without finding it necessary to interrupt him. I have uttered only two or three sentences but the hon. Gentleman is already on his feet.
On looking at the amendments we are reminded of the old exam question with which one is presented on reading industrial relations as a student. The question runs something like this—"If we had no trade unions, would we need to invent them?" That is precisely how the House of Lords still thinks about these matters. If we did not have trade unions in our society, I am sure that the Conservative Party would be interested in creating them so as to carry on a dialogue between employers and employees. It is against the background of existing industrial relations that we have to consider the concept of industrial democracy.
The hon. Member for Henley referred to the participation of all workers in industry as if the Labour Party has never been in favour of that approach. The contrary is the real position. The Labour Party has always encouraged the maximum involvement of ordinary people in the decision-making processes. The history of the Conservative Party is strewn with such things as the Combination Acts and legislation introduced to weaken the power of people to participate in industrial democracy.
We are not talking, as the hon. Member for Henley seemed to suggest, of individuals putting forward their points


of view to management in a suggestion-box situation; we are talking about establishing structures within the new aerospace industry. I sincerely hope that the structures will provide for the maximum involvement of those on the shop floor, in the drawing office and elsewhere in discussing day-to-day problems. Inevitably, representatives will have to be elected to sit on committees at various levels of the structures we establish. Immediately we do that, we are involved in precisely the situation that has existed in the industry for a considerable time.
The British Aircraft Corporation has found it impossible to conduct day-to-day negotiations with workers without trade unions. Unions such as TASS, APEX, ASTMS, and the AUEW are involved in the negotiations, representing both blue and white-collar workers. They meet management to discuss the problems that exist within a factory.
It is clear that another place is concerned that we now intend to give that concept a deeper understanding in that we intend to say that the structures will not only be concerned about pay, hours and holidays but with a wider range of issues affecting workers in their everyday lives—for example, matters affecting the product, the organisation within the factory and issues of who does what, when, how and where. All these matters will be discussed within the new structures established by industrial democracy.
Why do we say that it is unrealistic to talk about representation without the broad trade union movement that has grown up in our history? It is necessary to examine the changes that have taken place in the growth of white-collar unionism over the past 20 years. In many factories and organisations throughout the country, certainly within the white-collar sector, there has been a paternalistic relationship with managements. There has been the mistaken notion that promotion, security of tenure and status, for example, are influenced by the way in which the manager, on walking through the office in the morning, says "Good morning, John" or "Good morning, Mr. Smith". There was an attitude of mind that the closer

one was to management in a day-to-day relationship the better would be the chances of promotion, pay and status.
Over the past 10 years or 20 years the realisation has dawned that nothing could be further from the truth. That has brought about the growth of ASTMS and TASS, for example, as the membership within white-collar unions has recognised that the only way to further its interests is through the process of collective action, action within trade unions.
It would be wrong to suggest that that growth and that change is as advanced as some of my hon. Friends would like to see. There are still pockets of white-collar workers that hold to the old notion that if they approach the boss in a reasonable way, if they comply with management goals irrespective of whether they are inimical to their interests, they will achieve rewards. They still exist. The employers are now seeking in their own interests to extend that exploitation. They are seeking to create "sweetheart" unions to further the aspirations of white-collar workers.
Against that background there is a long-standing suspicion on the part of those trade unions which had to struggle for many years to improve their conditions. That is why there is such opposition to the concept of employer-associated trade unions. Few of the unions certified as independent are in real terms independent. Almost all have been buttressed by the employers and assisted by employer resources, and they are in almost all cases children born in the womb of an employer. Employers seek ways and means of preventing trade unions from creating the kind of industrial democracy that we envisaged when we attempted to discuss these matters in Standing Committee. I am convinced that we shall muster sufficient votes to defeat the absurd and infantile amendments submitted by the House of Lords.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: One would think that the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) knew something about the aircraft industry but, unfortunately, his remarks were obviously out of a textbook that he is writing. The hon. Gentleman should instead be learning about what is taking place in the industry. He should know that an entirely


new development has emerged in the last few years. People actively want to participate. They do not want to be led by those who talk the kind of poppycock used by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman is out of date in his thinking. We have seen from the hon. Gentleman, if we ever needed a demonstration, the effect of the Government's proposals. But we are talking about all the people, not only about the workers on the shop floor. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is ridiculous that the people of Hurn and Hatfield should have banded themselves together to take part in a consultation process involving many thousands of workers? He should not scorn them as he did, and he should not try to exert upon those people the authority of the State.
What is industrial democracy all about? What is this "strong and organic form" about which we have heard so much? We were never told the answer during the 58 sittings of the Standing Committee, and we have certainly never been told in this Chamber. Indeed, we are never told what it is we are voting for or against.
Surely we should have expected a great deal of consultation to have taken place in the process of discussion of these matters. But we discover that the so-called consultation is a class warfare phrase. It is consultation only with those who can qualify for membership of a TUC-affiliated union. Anybody else is a second-class citizen. That is the most significant matter that has come out of these discussions.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government succeed tonight there will be no industrial democracy for anybody who is not a member of a trade union?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Warren: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Trade union members participate because of that qualification. That, apparently, is the only way of achieving the kind of democracy spelt out in the Bill.
Let us briefly examine the charge hurled at us by the Minister that the Tories are not interested in the workers. I wonder what Labour Members are interested in. What instructions did the Minister give to Lord Beswick which made him refuse to consult certain

workers at Hawker Siddeley Dynamics at Stevenage who were not members of a TUC-affiliated union, even though it was known to the Minister of State, and indeed to the noble Lord, that those workers represented 40 per cent. of the work force on that site? Why do they ignore the willingness of those people to talk to the person designated to head the Corporation, if it ever comes into being?
Why was the Minister of State so lax in his own consultation processes that he came before the House last Monday and stated that the factories at Chester and Prestwick would close down if there were no nationalisation? We all know that Scottish Aviation immediately said that that was untrue. Furthermore, if the Minister examines the situation at Hawker Siddeley, he will discover that the atmosphere on the shop floor is good. However, his assault on that factory has devastated at a stroke its chances of exporting. The Minister should be more responsible than to come to the House and make such charges.
What about the situation at Warton, where apparently the consultation process is in order as long as it goes the Minister's way? The Minister ignored the BAC workers' referendum in which they voted against nationalisation. The Government are not really interested in consultation but are interested in Socialism. The reason why they will not allow consultation to take place with anybody but their own "sweetheart" unions is that, if that were to happen, the payments to the Labour Party would cease.

Mr. Tebbit: The purpose of the amendments is simple and straightforward. We believe that industrial democracy should be extended to everybody, not just to a select few. These amendments would make the rights given to workers enforceable at law instead of only through the use of industrial muscle with the chaos that that would create.
The Government's proposal throughout seeks to discriminate against new unions in favour of the old archaic, bureaucratic unions—the unions which possess so much power. It is strange that in this debate, as so often, the new unions—the staff unions—have been called the "sweetheart" unions. It has been said that they line up with the employers. However, under the proposals in the Bill


the employers are now sitting on the Government Benches. One of them is the Minister of State. By the Government's proposals the sweetheart unions are those which hold joint responsibility with the Minister of State and his Labour colleagues for bringing to this country more than double the amount of unemployment we suffered two and a half years ago and for helping to bring down the value of the pound to 63p. They are the unions which, in cahoots with Labour Members, ushered in the social contract and put a millstone of debt around the necks of every one of their members.
It is the Labour Government who are employers, and it is the old-fashioned unions in the TUC which are the sweetheart unions. Indeed, they are more than sweethearts. They are bound together in an incestuous relationship—and I would not care to be the partner of either of them.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I shall not take up the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).
I wish to congratulate the Government on this part of their legislation, which places a duty on the Corporation to develop a strong and organic form of industrial democracy. I very much welcome this move because the duty is very much on the lines of an amendment tabled by my hon. Friends and myself in Standing Committee. I agree with the Government that it is impossible to try to define industrial democracy. It would certainly be wrong in legislative form to seek to set out what we mean by the phrase.
I believe that what the phrase essentially means is that the Labour Government, for the first time, are giving to the workers in two important industries the opportunity to develop industrial democracy. I do not think that it can be imposed from above. It must develop within these industries. The challenge to the trade unions is to make sure that what the Government have done is not in any way thwarted or frustrated by management in the industries.
The essence of the amendments that we are discussing now is clearly an attempt to undermine effective trade union organisation in these two industries. It is another attempt—this time by the House of Lords—to bring about a

situation where the sweetheart associations are given all kinds of rights within the two industries.
It seemed to me that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was clearly and understandably—because he had little else to say and little else to defend—purposely trying to confuse the situation. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are three points on a spectrum. One is the Tory view that all these sweetheart associations, no matter what or who they represent, should have the same rights as the trade unions in these industries. At the other end of the spectrum we have the view of myself and of my hon. Friends that the certification officer procedure and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service procedure need to be strengthened because they have allowed a number of bogus trade unions to get the certification bit of paper. Indeed, some of us put down amendments in Committee to the effect, first, that "relevant trade unions" ought to be trade unions affiliated to the TUC and, when this was defeated, that the definition should be affiliated to the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. We took that course because we believed that the certification officer procedure was far too loose as too many of the sweetheart associations had already got that certificate.
The hon. Member for Henley knows that the Government have a middle position. I do not know whether he has looked up the definition of "relevant trade union" in the Bill, but it makes it clear that any organisation of workers, to use the Industrial Relations Act term, which gets that bit of paper can get recognition immediately by management or via the ACAS machinery as a relevant trade union. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman tried to confuse and distort what the Minister said on that matter.
Why do we argue that only effective trade union organisations should be given rights in the development of industrial democracy and what have you? The major reason is effectiveness. Some of the sweetheart associations' members pay only 10p a year, and others pay even less than that, if that is possible. They do not and cannot possibly have the research facilities, the full-time officers and all that is required to be an effective organisation.

Mr. Hoyle: None at all.

Mr. Thomas: They do not have those facilities. One of the worst things that can happen is for industrial democracy not to work because the organisations involved cannot make an effective contribution. I cannot see how any one of these sweetheart associations, whether it has 2,000, 3,000 or 5,000 members paying 10p each a year, can possibly be effective.
One association has a membership fee of £1 a year. I could quote all kinds of figures. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) has a list of subscriptions paid by members of sweetheart associations. How can they build up an effective organisation with research departments and so on to help their members who are trying to develop industrial democracy. I suggest that only trade unions such as ASTMS can afford research departments and full-time officials to service and support the people who will be the spearhead of the development of industrial democracy.
The Tory Party always turns to the legitimate trade unions when it suits its purpose. When this country was in a crisis, Ted Heath invited to Downing Street for a pint of beer—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Hon. Members are not allowed to refer to other Members by name. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.

Mr. Thomas: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Prime Ministers, whether Tory or Labour, whenever this country faces an economic crisis, immediately turn to the TUC and invite representatives to come round for beer and sandwiches. They do not turn to the sweetheart associations. They turn to the TUC to discipline the trade union movement, whether it is about pay or anything else. They turn to the TUC for representatives to serve on boards, whether at national or local level. They do not turn to the sweetheart associations. In other words, when they want the trade unions to be the stretcher-bearers of the capitalist system, they turn not to the sweetheart associations but to the legitimate trade unions. They expect

them to carry the burden, whether it is pay policy, inflation or, at the other end of the spectrum, nominating members for the thousands of different boards and committees on which trade union representatives serve.
Basically, this is an attempt by the Lords to wreck this legislation. At least the hon. Member for Henley was honest, because he said that his ambition was to wreck the Bill and to stop the aircraft industry coming into public ownership. The hon. Gentleman does not mind that hundreds of millions of pounds of public money should be poured into the industry year in, year out. The hon. Gentleman does not mind the taxpayer paying, but he does not want the taxpayer to have control.

Mr. Hoyle: We pay.

Mr. Thomas: If there is to be this kind of public expenditure in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, there must be public accountability. We can get that public accountability only through public ownership.
One hon. Gentleman referred to BAC Filton. Opposition Members, have, like me, been inundated with letters and telegrams from BAC shop stewards and workers—

Mr. Tebbit: Not me.

Mr. Thomas: —asking, and in some cases getting very angry and telling them, to stop delaying the Bill. I know that the Leader of the Opposition has had telegrams from BAC workers. I understand that Opposition Front Bench Members have also received telegrams from Tory, Liberal and Labour supporters among the shop stewards at BAC Filton.

Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps the Union of Post Office Workers would not deliver them.

Mr. Thomas: The workers at BAC Filton want the aircraft industry brought into public ownership as quickly as possible.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I was delighted when I first saw the amendments in Standing Committee in the names of the hon. Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) and Preston, South


(Mr. Thorne), although I was a little puzzled by their reference to "strong and organic", words I usually associate with advertisements in the gardening newspapers. On hearing their arguments, however, I realised that they were proposing that the Corporation should be able to promote industrial democracy in an undemocratic form, that they were talking about oligarchy and privilege and be damned to the rights of the demos, the people. To my colleagues and me, industrial democracy can mean only one thing—one employee, one vote.
I am not interested in discussing their Lordships' amendments in terms of particular unions or associations, whether they be allegedly sweetheart or quite the opposite and most unpleasant. That is not the matter at issue. We are concerned here with industrial democracy. Their Lordships went to the heart of the matter when they voted for an amendment which emphasised the right of employees to participate. They were emphasising not the right of some particular staff association to participate, although that might have been involved, but of each and every employee to participate. Without that, there can be no democracy.
It was apposite that a Liberal peer in the other place, in strongly supporting the amendment, should have said that he wished that nationalised industries had made much more progress during the last 30 years towards industrial democracy. He might have gone on to say that he wished that when the Conservatives nationalised Rolls-Royce they had implemented in the necessary legislation some of their industrial charter and their concept of industrial democracy.
Industrial democracy can be achieved only if, for elections involving a substantial amount of control, every employee has a vote. Local industrial democracy—[Interruption.]—which is the seed bed for national industrial democracy, can be achieved only if in the election to the shipyard council—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will not conduct a secondary debate in the House while another hon. Member is on his feet.

Mr. Wainwright: I was saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this can be achieved

only if, in the election of the local democratic units, the shipyard council, the company council and the works council, each employee has one vote. Liberals have never denied that in these wholly democratic elections vigorous trade union activity is not only to be expected but to be applauded.
Labour Members have done the union movement a great disservice by suggesting that it would not welcome the opportunity to engage most energetically in industrial elections at the workplace and on to boards of control. Certainly in my constituency, which has an industrial history about as long as anywhere in the country, the people running local union branches would welcome the chance of electioneering like mad for places for union men on these democratically elected councils.
I said before that the odds are that, where a union is in good standing and is active and has achieved genuine results rather than just political talk, 99 out of 100 people elected would probably be union activists. That is not to deny that each employee should have an equal vote. That is the fundamental issue, and it has nothing to do with whether certain unions are sweetheart unions. I think that their Lordships were on very sound and constitutional ground when they made this amendment.

Mr. Hoyle: I always listen with rapt attention to the Liberal Party's ideas on industrial democracy, although the Liberals always fall short of supporting a majority among the workers on any board. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) seems to support the idea of the German system, but on supervisory boards in Germany only 30 per cent. of the members represent the employees.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The hon. Member is falling short of his usual standard of being well informed, because in the coal and steel industries in Germany workers' representatives are 50 per cent. of the membership.

Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Member knows that most of German industry is privately owned and that in the private sector representation is only 30 per cent. Workers in German industry regard this


arrangement as a dead letter. They have told me that they are not interested.
I believe, however, that the hon. Member is dragging a Liberal herring across the scene, because our debate tonight is about sweetheart unions. We are witnessing an attempt by the Opposition to get recognition for these unions. They are, of course, creatures of management. They owe their existence to the managements in the industries concerned. In Committee I referred to the British Aerospace Staff Association. I received a letter from the association saying that I had been harsh in my treatment of it and that I was not being truthful in my description of the facilities it could offer its members.
This evening I wish once more to deal with that association. It is one of the sweetheart unions for which the Opposition want recognition. It is true that that staff association could never have existed without the co-operation of management. Its first chairman was a Mr. Mitchell. That gentleman was asked to draw up the rules for the association, but it is worth noting that in his other capacity, wearing his other hat, Mr. Mitchell is the executive director of legal affairs for Hawker Siddeley. So much for the independence of the British Aerospace Staff Association.
The association's structure is far from democratic. Apart from Mr. Mitchell, there is a Mr. Richards who was assistant personnel manager at Hawker Siddeley. He also played a leading part in the organisation. It is clear that there are no restrictions upon senior management members joining the association. I reiterate that the association is not democratic. Its national council is the overriding body which determines and interprets the rules. The association is not compelled to hold a delegate conference of lay members, except at the behest of the national council. In addition, the national council takes all decisions. The national council cannot be removed from office.
All that seems to me to be far from democratic. That, however, is what the Opposition want us to recognise. [Interruption.] Of course, the Conservatives do not want these associations to be able to negotiate collectively because they might be able to secure better bargains. They want the associations to be complete

creatures of management. [Interruption.] We are quite accustomed to these seated interruptions from the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) in which he puts his own gloss on things, but he is a member of a union. He used to be a leading member of a TUC affiliate. I do not know why he does not spread his knowledge to his fellow Members and ask them to back the real unions in these industries.

Mr. Tebbit: The answer is that BALPA happen to be a very well run, efficient, democratically organised union, and there was no need for any other union. But in many of these organisations there is a crying need for a union which does better for its members than—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us."] I will name those who think that there is a need for a better organisation. They are the thousands who have joined the staff associations.

Mr. Hoyle: That was a very interesting interruption, if I might say so, because I have already been talking about the British Aerospace Staff Association, in which the national council dictates whether there will be an annual conference. Does the hon. Member for Ching-for regard this as a democratic organisation? That is what his Front Bench is arguing.
These are the kinds of sweetheart unions that Conservative Members are asking us to recognise. There is no democracy there. Let the Conservatives urge people to join democratic unions such as my own ASTMS, TASS or APEX, which are democratic and responsive to their members. Why waste time on this creature of management, which could not exist without management?

Mr. Ron Thomas: Will my hon. Friend agree that it is the usual procedure for Tory Members to keep insisting that there are far too many trade unions, whereas here it seems that they want to create many more?

Mr. Hoyle: Yes. I find this a rather unusual argument. Whenever they talk about industrial relations they always mention the need to reduce the number of unions, yet here they are trying to set up staff associations which can only impair good industrial relations in the two Corporations. I do not understand this.
They do not seem to be following the logic of their previous arguments.

Mr. Ron Thomas: They are schizophrenic.

Mr. Hoyle: Even if the British Aerospace Staff Association is allowed by its national council to have a delegate conference, Rule 18.7 states that
Any decision taken by the delegate conference, with the exception of the election of the national officers, shall be subject to ratification and adoption by the National Council.
It is, therefore, a self-perpetuating oligarchy—exactly what we are being told by hon. Members on the Liberal Benches. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Colne Valley is not now present, but that was exactly the point to which he was objecting. He did not want any self-perpetuating oligarchy. Yet the amendments are precisely for the purpose of recognising this kind of organisation.
What do we find when we look at the finances of the British Aerospace Staff Association? It claims to have up to 5,000 members. It is always difficult to get the figures. I think that the true membership is about 1,000. What do the members pay for whatever services they get? They pay 80p a month. The association cannot even afford to have a secretary to type its letters. This is the kind of organisation that we are being asked to recognise.
I should like to know where the money came from to set up a formation committee. I wonder who paid the travelling expenses. I wonder who paid Mr. Mitchell, as chairman, to draw up the rules. Did he draw them up in company time? There are many questions that we could be asking about these very strange organisations that the Opposition want us to recognise.
6.45 p.m.
What we know for certain is that BASA has no full-time officers or salaried staff. But it has now joined an organisation called the Confederation of Employees' Organisations, of which the Secretary is the Rev. Paul Nicholson. He is the strangest parson I have ever known. This organisation cannot offer its members any great facilities either, because when we look at the Confederation of Employees' Organisations we find that it

has one full-time member of staff, the said Rev. Paul Nicholson. He is helped by two young ladies. One is a secretarial telephonist and the other is a secretarial typist, whatever that might mean. I agree that the confederation will be able to get its letters typed, but, of course, its members cannot be offered any research facilities at all.

Mr. Ron Thomas: They cannot even pay the postage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) will bring to an end the duet that he is having with the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. Hoyle: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am speaking to the whole House. I am sorry if you think I am doing otherwise. Indeed, I am directing my remarks to the Opposition. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is quite enjoying—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows full well that he has to address the Chair, whether the Chair is listening to him or not.

Mr. Hoyle: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are listening to me. I do not imagine that you would want to join a sweetheart union, but these are the pitfalls that would befall you if you did.
With regard to the finances of BASA—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members do not want to learn a little more about these associations it is not my fault, but they should have the fullest information about them so that they can really know what they are backing.
At the end of 1975 the assets of BASA stood at £3,292. The figure for cash-in-hand was £1,723. Those are not the sort of figures on which to try to run a trade union if it is intended to give a proper service to the members.
I do not understand why the Conservative Party is encouraging these sweetheart organisations when it could be encouraging people to join unions which provide for senior staff, not only in the aerospace industry but throughout all industry. They should be encouraging people to join unions which have the resources to provide research officers and educational facilities for all the members.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: I am greatly intrigued by what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but will he explain to the House to whom within a union he feels that ultimate responsibility must be given? It is all very well to talk about democracy, but the decision making is all important. Will he indicate whether he thinks that it is the staff side, the ordinary member or the officials of the union that he considers to be the most important?

Mr. Hoyle: The important people within any democratic union are the lay membership. I am sorry that the hon. Lady has only just joined us, otherwise she would have realised that I was talking about the British Aerospace Staff Association, in which the ordinary lay membership has no voice whatsoever. Yet it is that kind of sweetheart organisation that Conservative Members are saying the two Corporations should recognise. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady's question.
I find it very strange, as I have already indicated, that Conservative Members should continue to back these sweetheart organisations when they know that there are genuine trade unions which could offer full services. Indeed, I should have thought that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) would be advising senior staff in both aerospace and shipbuilding to join my own union, ASTMS—if I might put in a "plug" for it. What is good enough for the research department of Conservative Central Office should be good enough for the senior staff in both aerospace and shipbuilding. The research staff at Conservative Central Office have joined ASTMS for protection against their employer.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I do not believe that the Government know what they are doing tonight. Anyone who has been to BAC Warton would soon find that out. They are pretending to encourage industrial democracy when in fact they are supporting a new form of industrial dictatorship. They are threatening to bring an end to industrial democracy in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries.
Without these amendments, industrial democracy will be denied to all parties and organisations unless they are trade unions. In that case, they will be privileged to enjoy a form of industrial dictatorship which has never been imposed on

an industry before. These implicit threats to industrial freedom are well understood by those who work in my constituency. The Government will get no thanks for trying to push through the Bill in its original form.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Amendment No. 7 has been rightly described as a trigger amendment. Individual amendments should be singled out, since whatever the information to the contrary there might be a vote on every amendment.
It must be difficult for anyone to oppose Amendment No. 7, which provides the fundamental definition of any democracy, not just industrial democracy—that of one man, one vote. It is not put that way. It uses the phrase
in which all employees have the right to participate ".
I can envisage no real form of industrial democracy which excluded one section of the work force. That would cause grievances and the collapse of morale.
I do not want to become involved in a battle about union recognition. We must keep these things separate as far as possible. Amendment No. 7 suggests the future shape of industrial democracy and I hope that it will be accepted in principle. The Government can hardly oppose it if they maintain their own views about democracy. They may be influenced by other amendments, but votes are always possible. I have no doubt about Amendment No. 7: it says just what it means.
As for the form of consultation that is required, particularly in the earlier clauses there are frequent references to consultation of the relevant unions, to the Organising Committee consulting various groups over the drawing up of initial plans and annual plans once the Corporations are formed. I am concerned about what I have been told by the Shipbuilding Association. a middle management organisation that has a certificate of independence. It claims 96 per cent. of the available membership in Scotland. In Robb Caledon, in my constituency, the figure is 98 per cent. Leaving aside the vexed problems of inter-union rivalry and recognition, if an organisation has that level of membership, its views should be sought on the development of the industry after nationalisation.
This section of the work force has as much to contribute as the craft unions and the directors. If what I have been told is correct, they should not be excluded. Recognition should be kept separate from consultation. I have reservations about some of the amendments, but on the basic amendment about consultation on future plans, particularly at this dangerous and tender time when orders are short, I have no doubts. These people, who are skilled in tendering, should not be excluded. Their exclusion would be a recipe for disaster.
I am not saying that these people are more knowledgeable than those in the craft unions, who have a great deal to give, particularly when it comes to shop floor working, efficiency and human relations. I do not discount their contribution or that of the directors who are probably being consulted. But this association should also be consulted.
I do not want to speak about the aircraft industry in England, because I do not know enough about it, but I hope that the shipbuilding industry will be fully consulted. How can the Organising Committee prepare its plans for the industry's future if it is not drawing upon every skilled and knowledgeable person who is willing to contribute? Individuals can contribute, but so can collective organisations, whether or not they are recognised as unions.
Amendment No. 10 seeks to perpetuate some of the undesirable features of the Industrial Relations Court, by bringing back into the courts questions of interpretation of arrangements within an industry and the organisation of unions. If we have learned one thing over the last 21 years, it is surely that the courts should be kept as far as possible from union matters. Even Conservative Members seem to have concluded that the previous arrangement was disastrous; they no longer seem to enthusiastic about judicial control of union activities. It would be interesting to knew whether they seek to reintroduce that concept.
I would differentiate the basis of Amendment No. 18 from the question of consultation. It would recognise the associations involved—I am thinking particularly of the shipbuilding one—for the purposes of wages and conditions bargaining. If that amendment is agreed,

Parliament will be intervening in the recognition of a section of the work force.
Parliament should concern itself with consultation and industrial democracy, laying down the general guidelines but not getting involved in individual cases, particularly in view of the Minister's good news that ACAS could be brought in if there is no prospect of settlement in the dispute which unfortunately seems to have materialised.
7.0 p.m.
Lastly, I quote from an interesting booklet produced by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). It is a report on employee participation in Scotland. This was much maligned during discussions on the Cromarty Petroleum Order Confirmation Bill, but the report was brought out as a result of activities of a committee which included the general secretary of the Scottish TUC, the regional officer of the AEUW and the divisional organiser of the same union. Therefore, there was a good smattering of trade union experience behind it. The report said, in relation to the problem of consultation:
Middle management must not be, or feel that it is being, by-passed in moves to more active participation.
It is a question of morale as much as anything. The report also indicated, having looked at the German experience, that the trade union role will be very strong when industrial democracy does come about. The proposition that one must accept if one is basically a democrat is that all employees in an industry should be entitled to participate in the running of that industry.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. It is very clear that the definition of industrial democracy depends on the individual making the definition and the view that that person has taken over the years. It is very strange to find that people who in the past have taken no interest in the work force and have periodically rejected all efforts by the work force to involve themselves in management are now seeking wider worker involvement than the Bill proposes.
The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) said that the trade unions were old, archaic and out of date, but nothing


is so archaic and out of date in this respect as the Tory Party. It seems strange that this remark should come from the hon. Member, who used to be a member of one of the strongest and most powerful unions in Britain—the British Airline Pilots Association. It certainly knows how to use industrial muscle to get its way and lay down the law to British Airways.
But we always come back to the basic argument of what is meant by industrial democracy. Of course we want it to mean "one man, one vote" in terms of elections but what happens, for example, when the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) discusses with his industrialist friends their attitude to a particular Bill? Does he go to every member of the CBI, and speak to every manager and every director, to determine his views. Of course he does not. He turns to the representative organisation and those who are sent to see him—those who have been delegated responsibility. Otherwise, he would spend every minute of the day seeing these people and he would never have any time left to see his constituents. What about the hon. Member's constituents? Can he say, when putting his constituents' views, that he has consulted every one of them? Does he go around knocking at every door and returning later if the wife or husband is out? No, of course not. He has to rely on consultation and delegated responsibility to assess his constituents' views. In this Bill we are trying to incorporate delegated responsibility and representative democracy. Every time there are discussions about industrial democracy within a factory or a group of factories, every worker has the right to take part in those discussions. But if this were taken literally modern industrial society just would not work.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) referred to the Shipbuilding and Allied Trades Management Association. I wonder what value we should place on organisations like that, which have been widely described as "sweetheart" unions. The hon. Member said that the association was very strong in Scotland. Perhaps he meant that this was the situation on the east coast of Scotland. I have a letter dated the 8th November from the Shipbuilding and Allied Trades Association. It seems very

strange that it should have decided to tell us what a strong association it is at this late stage and to claim that it has just been set up as an organisation.
Apparently the organisation came into being on 21st June 1975, so it has taken it rather a long time to realise that it should get in touch with members of Parliament. It claims to have a big membership in Aberdeen but it has never made any attempt to consult me. I have been in the Hall Russell Yard many times, meeting management and shop stewards, and no one has ever mentioned this association to me. The interesting thing is that the letter said that the association draws its membership from assistant chief draughtsmen upwards, to those managers who are just below director level, and it claims the reason why the union has been formed is government legislation that provides for the acceptance of closed shop situations after nationalisation.
These people have organised this response because they do not want to become members of trade unions which have served the industry efficiently for a long time. I was a draughtsman in engineering, so I have experience of this. I do wish that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) would not sit there making remarks from a sedentary position.

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: In his first sentence the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said he would be brief. He has already spoken for seven minutes, so what does he mean by brevity?

Mr. Hughes: Seven minutes is not bad in the context of one of the most important Bills that we have had to discuss this Session. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West should know that if he wants a long speech, he is going the right way about getting it.
I know that from when I worked in engineering the draughtsmen's union was organised up to chief draughtsman level. In fact, when I joined, the first thing I was asked by the chief draughtsman was "Where is your union card?" There is no necessity for another union at all. In management the ASTMS organises to the highest levels, so I have my suspicions about the necessity for this new association, and I have grave suspicions about


the reasons for its formation. We want as many people as possible to be involved in organisations that wish to see a viable future for the industry, and we want to do this with consultation. But it is not necessary to allow every single body that may spring into existence to be covered by the legislation.
If existing trade unions were not doing their job, the Opposition might have a case, but unions like my own—the engineering section of the AUEW—have democratic methods of discussion, election of officials, and shop floor involvement. It is far better to work with a structure that gives us the ability to move fast.
Everyone with any knowledge of the shipbuilding industry has argued that we need a speedy decision on the Bill and speedy action to set up consultative and industrial democracy machinery to get the industry moving.
For far too long, managements and those who own the industry have rejected the views of the workers who have a far better knowledge than many shareholders. I look forward to the day when the knowledge, expertise and enthusiasm of workers will be harnesssed to the full. The best way of doing that is to work through existing democratic, organic structures that people understand and that can produce the action that will benefit the industry.

Mr. George Younger: This has been a revealing debate and has come closer than almost anything else to convincing me of the wisdom of broadcasting Parliament. I wish the public could have seen the display of hon. Members on the Government Benches who believe, no doubt with great sincerity, that they know everything about industrial democracy.
I wish that those hon. Members would learn that industrial democracy will never work if they try to impose a rigid system with their own rules which people will have to put up with willy-nilly. The spectacle of them bringing on their big guns to try to exclude small groups of people who, for various reasons, have banded together in unions or organisations of which hon. Members opposite do not approve is a pathetic commentary on how little they understand about

industrial democracy, though I concede that they have a masterly grasp of the jargon associated with it.
If we are to write into statutes any requirements about industrial democracy, I hope that we shall listen to some more sensible people, such as Mr. David Basnett, who I heard giving a talk on this subject last week. He made it quite clear that it would be a great mistake to try to impose the sort of rigid pattern to which the hon. Members for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) and Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) have referred. They want to impose their power game rules so that they can run it their way.
The whole attitude of the hon. Member for Preston, South to this problem is a recipe for bad industrial relations. Any firm who took him on could be certain that its industrial relations would go rapidly downhill for as long as he was there.
I should like the Minister of State to practise some consultation himself. In the House on Monday, with no consultation, he made a remark about Scottish Aviation in my constituency which has gravely offended everyone in the firm, whether they are for or against nationalisation. His remark has potentially done great damage to its prospects of getting export orders.
I think that the hon. Gentleman should apologise for saying that the firm is teetering on the brink of disaster. Let him make it clear that no one should think that it is the view of a Minister of the Crown that the firm is on the brink of disaster. It is not. The hon. Gentleman has already had a letter from the firm explaining that it is not in such a position. I hope that he will not make such remarks again, because they do great damage to my constituents.

Mr. Kaufman: In reply to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), I start by saying that I stand by every word I said on Monday. If it were not for the damage that could be done to Scottish Aviation, I should be able to document the position in the House. There is nothing that I can withdraw in any way from a statement I made with a full sense of responsibility.
The management wrote to me, publicising the letter before I received it. It


might also publicise its various letters since I took up this post beseeching me to find work for Scottish Aviation because of its very difficult position and beseeching me to find Government work for the aviation industry. I got the Jetstreams into Scottish Aviation. Without that, there would be more than the 401 redundancies which have just been declared and more than the 1,000 redundancies declared in recent months.
Opposition Members who know nothing about Scottish Aviation, who have never been near the place, never had communications from the workers or discussions with the workers or the management should not sit and heckle. Every word that I have said about Scottish Aviation has been said with the full sense of the gravity of the situation confronting the company.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the hon. Gentleman remember that he is a Minister of the Crown and that a certain integrity in his relations with companies is expected of him?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman talks about integrity, but I have the Mace just in front of me to remind me how he regards our institutions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sing the 'Red Flag'".] The "Red Flag" is a well-known old German hymn. Some hon. Members opposite may not like German tunes, but some can sing others of which we know.
In the less controversial part of his speech, the hon. Member for Ayr quoted Mr. David Basnett as a responsible trade union leader. Of course he quoted selectively, because Mr. Basnett supports, in toto, the Bill as it left this House before it was mangled by another place, and he wishes to see the Bill enacted as it left this House. If hon. Members are to quote Mr. Basnett, I hope that they will quote all his views.
The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) rose at the customary teatime hour—as we grew to expect of him in Committee—and said, as he has said many times before, that he totally opposes the Bill. His total opposition is wholehearted and extends to his never having read it. Whenever he seeks to deal with a point in the Bill, he shows his utter and abysmal ignorance.
The hon. Gentleman was not arguing about the amendment or the content of the Bill. He was arguing about the implementation of the Bill when it is enacted. He said that organisations such as the SAIMA, to which the hon. Member for Dundee, East, (Mr. Wilson) referred, ought to be recognised in the Bill. But that organisation is a relevant trade union within the terms of the definition clause.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East has shown repeatedly that he knows the contents of the Bill, whether or not he agrees with them. In raising the issue of the SAIMA, he brings before us a serious and delicate problem which I acknowledge to be important. We need to find a way of harnessing the expertise, knowledge, experience and dedication of people who have joined organisations such as this.
We need to find an acceptable solution to this problem and attempts are being made. We are doing our best. However, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East acknowledges, this is not a criticism of the content of the Bill or a commendation of the ignorant, footling amendments made in another place which have no relevance to this serious problem.
The other Opposition parties have shown a greater knowledge of these matters than has the Tory Party. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), who I know will vote against us, has shown knowledge of these matters. I do not have to allude only to the knowledge of those who agree with me. The hon. Member for Henley and his party combine total disagreement with total ignorance. The Liberal Party combines a good deal of disagreement with a certain amount of knowledge. That is one of the differences between the two parties.
The Tory Party is trying to arrange, with the help of noble Lords, for constitutional rights to consultation by organisations which are simply a cat's paws of employers, such as the one which I quote quoted from the report in the Financial Times last week. It was refused a certificate by ACAS as a relevant trade union on the grounds that the staff association was not economically viable and that it was liable to be influenced, if not dominated, by management. That is an organisation


which the Tory Party believes should be involved in consultations on industrial democracy, a body like the one at Hum, with only 38 members. The hon. Gentleman believes that that is a relevant trade union.
The Tory Party has not addressed itself to the Bill. It has instead addressed itself to some phantasmagoria with which it seeks to confuse the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) said that the hon. Member for Henley was purposely trying to confuse us. The hon. Gentleman was doing it not purposely but effortlessly, because that is how he approaches these matters.
The hon. Member for Ayr was absolutely right in what he said about industrial democracy. There must not be a rigid form. It must not be laid down to the last dot and comma by the House of Commons. To promote industrial democracy, we want to see workers and management consulting together and producing a form of industrial democracy most suitable to their workplace, their working conditions, the product they produce and their geographical location. All of these are required. That is why we have not laid down an industrial democracy system. We have laid down that there should be consultations between British Aerospace and the relevant trade unions to produce a system of industrial democracy.
The Tory Party never learns. It brought in the Industrial Relations Act. It will not learn that one must not organise industrial relations on the basis of rigid legislation. It must be left to the workers and management to work out. The Bill as it left the House would have achieved that.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 309.

[For Division List 398 see col. 773]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The numbers being equal, I declare myself with the Ayes in order to preserve the Bill as passed by the House of Commons, so the Ayes have it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 disagreed to.

New Clause A

SHIPREPAIRING

Lords amendment: No. 12, after Clause 3, in page 7, line 8, at end insert:
A. None of the functions conferred by this Act upon the Secretary of State or British Shipbuilders shall be construed as authorising or requiring British Shipbuilders to repair or maintain ships except by or through the companies referred to in Schedule 2 to this Act.

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 44, 47, 53, 74, 77, 78 and 80.

Mr. Kaufman: The amendments deal with the ship repair industry in three different ways and in three different strands. I shall deal with the amendments seriatim and then draw the attention of the House to the significance of their different strands.
I shall deal first with the relationship between ship repairing and shipbuilding. The Opposition have argued, here and in the other place that shipbuilding and repairing are distinct activities. After listening to those arguments upstairs and in the Chamber and after reading the record of the other place, I began to wonder whether I was mistaken in thinking that a number of shipbuilders covered by the Bill are also engaged in ship repairing. I began to wonder, for example, why the Bill included a company called the Goole Shipbuilding and Repairing Company. I also began to wonder why we had a body called the Shipbuilders and Repairers National Association. If the industries are so different from each other, why should there be a joint body to protect their interests?
In a number of companies, ship repairing and shipbuilding are undertaken by the same group and in some cases interchangeability of labour and common facilities exist. When we had our earliest debate on this matter in Committee, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) made a great thing of the separateness of the Wallsend Slipway and Engineering Company and Swan Hunter.
But those who have visited dock areas know that one can go from shipyard to ship repair yard and back to the shipyard without realizing that one has moved from one yard to another. That also is the case overseas.
During the recess, as the hon. Member for Tynemouth knows, because he was there at about the same time, I visited Korea, which has one of the most up-to-date shipyards in the world. I visited the Korean Shipbuilding and Engineering Company at Busan, the Hyundai Shipyard at Ulsan and also the Mitsubishi Shipyards at Nagasaki, in Japan. I learned that workers and employers were amazed that anyone should suggest that shipbuilding and ship repairing should be separated. In Japan the ship repair yard is owned by the same general owner as the shipbuilding yards. At Hyundai, the docks are interchangeable for shipbuilding and ship repairing. Workers are sometimes employed on building and sometimes on repairing. Those two countries, which have some of the most dynamic facilities, labour forces and employers in the world, regard this controversy in Britain as extraordinary and bizarre. Let us therefore consider our terms of reference. The activities are different aspects of the same business. That is recognised by the SRNA.
The group of amendments that we are seeking to delete from the Bill is related to the Opposition's determined aim to remove the major ship repair companies from the scope of the Bill. Amendment No. 12 restricts British Shipbuilders' powers to do ship repairing to that done through the companies named in Schedule 2. Amendment No. 77 deletes the ship repairing companies from the schedule, leaving ship repair to be carried out through the remaining companies in the schedule. Amendments Nos. 78 and 80 amend the definitions in Schedule 2 to delete reference to ship repairing. Amendments Nos. 44, 47, 53 and 74 introduce changes to the safeguarding and compensation provisions and to the definition of works in the interpretation clause. The Government have a commitment to nationalise the ship repair industry. The Opposition are seeking to deter us from carrying out a commitment given to the electorate in the two 1974 election manifestos. That is distinct from our commitment to shipbuilding.

Mr. Neville Trotter: That was before the electorates of Workington and Walsall, North rejected it.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Kaufman: It was not. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) may have formed a different impression. His is neither a shipbuilding nor a ship repairing area. It has few dock facilities. If the temporary hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) were present he would confirm that this was not one of the major issues in which he fought the by-election. But it was an issue on which the election was fought in Newcastle, Central. The only by-election in a shipbuilding area reinforced our mandate to carry through these commitments.
The reasons for nationalising the ship repair industry are no less clear than those for nationalising shipbuilding. The report on the industry by PA Management Consultants, commissioned by the previous Tory Administration, highlighted a number of problems affecting the future of the ship repairing industry. Among those, the most significant were outdated facilities and unsatisfactory labour relations. Those are two problems that must be tackled within the industry as soon as possible.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister has said that shipbuilding urgently demands additional investment. Has he discussed that with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and has the Chancellor approved the investment of a substantial sum into shipbuilding and repair after nationalisation?

Mr. Kaufman: Yes, certainly. We would not be making a provision such as this if we did not want to back it up with the money that will make it effective.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Where will the money come from?

Mr. Kaufman: We shall get the money from the taxpayers. That is the way that Governments get money. There is no other way. We shall get it from the taxpayers. There are two ways in which Governments get money. One is from profits, which the industry is not making, and the other is by borrowing money from the taxpayers.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton) rose—

Mr. Kaufman: I do not want to give way, but if I do I hope that hon. Members will not complain that I speak for too long.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We should not be discussing the source of money. That is not contained in the amendments.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Do we not borrow from the International Monetary Fund as well as taxing the taxpayer and borrowing from our local money market?

Mr. Kaufman: The borrowing requirement is rising less speedily than it did when the hon. Member gave his sporadic support to the Conservative Government.
I shall return to the subject, since I have a certain amount to say that is relevant to the amendments. I was being characteristically humble and self-effacing, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Our aim in taking the larger ship repair companies into public ownership is to achieve improved investment and productivity. Taking into public ownership the larger companies mostly set out in the main schedules will enable the corporation to produce a coherent strategy for the larger ship repairing yards as a whole.
I should point out some of the difficulties that would be created if the Lords amendments were not rejected. Lords Amendment No. 12, which is a particularly foolish one, would prevent British Shipbuilders from carrying out any ship repair activities except through the companies named in Schedule 2. But there is already a major ship repair group—North-East Coast Shiprepairers—which is in public ownership, and it makes industrial logic to bring that group into British Shipbuilders. In Committee, the hon. Member for Tynemouth specifically asked us to do so, and, as so often, I acceded to his request, even though, as a holding company, this company does not appear in Schedule 2. Lords Amendment No. 12 would prevent that sensible structure. The three subsidiary companies of North-East Coast Shiprepairers are named in the schedule. They are Brigham and Cowan Limited, Mercantile Dry Dock Company Limited, and the Middle Docks & Engineering Company Limited.
If Amendment No. 77 is not reversed, these companies will not appear in Schedule 2, and by reason of Lords Amendment No. 12 it would not be possible to place these important publicly-owned ship repairing companies under the control of British Shipbuilders unless they become subsidiaries of shipbuilding companies or engine-building companies already in the schedule. The Government would thus be prevented from making the most effective arrangements for ship repair companies already in public ownership, or, indeed, for any private sector ship repair companies which by agreement are brought into British Shipbuilders.
Lords Amendments Nos. 44, 47, 53 and 74 are also unacceptable to the Government. These would allow any shipbuilding company named in Schedule 2 to hive off its ship repairing operations without the consent of the Secretary of State. I have pointed out several times in the debates on this Bill that many ship repair facilities and operations are closely integrated with shipbuilding yards.
Several shipbuilding companies in Schedule 2 also carry out ship repairing activities within the same company—Vosper Thorneycroft, Hall Russell, Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd, Robb Caledon, Smiths Dock and the Goole Shipbuilding and Repairing Company Ltd. are examples. It would be illogical and difficult to try to hive off the ship repair operations in these cases where they are so closely integrated with shipbuilding, and it would be wrong to have a provision which allows any company to do this without consent, as it would mean breaking up the existing company structure to the disadvantage of British Shipbuilders.
The Government's case for nationalising the ship repair companies listed in Schedule 2 of the Bill has been made at considerable length in the course of the passage of the Bill in this House and in another place—and the Government remain firmly committed to bringing these companies into public ownership under British Shipbuilders.
I would now like to try to clarify the three strands of amendments and to make clear that acceptance of one group of them by any group of hon. Members


would not necessarily carry with it acceptance of either or both of the other two groups.
The main amendments which I know are of particular interest to some hon. Members are Nos. 77, 78 and 80. These would have the effect of removing the definition of a ship repairing company from Schedule 2, together with the names of the 12 ship repairing companies listed in the schedule. That would at least be simple. We do not like it, but it would be a clean cut operation. However, we oppose it and will try to reverse it. Nevertheless, this is a category of amendment on its own. British Shipbuilders would still retain a duty to promote the repair and maintenance of ships either through several shipbuilding companies in Schedule 2 already engaged in this activity or through any ship repairing companies that it might acquire by agreement.
But the new clause inserted by Lords Amendment No. 12 would seriously curtail the ability of British Shipbuilders to carry out this ship repair activity effectively, and I think that even if one supported Lords Amendments Nos. 77, 78 and 80, everyone would agree that that would be undesirable and greatly damaging to British Shipbuilders. The new provisions inserted by Lords Amendments Nos. 44, 47, 53 and 74 would permit a shipbuilding company to hive off any ship repair activities without consent, thus breaking up the existing company structure, to the disadvantage of British shipbuilders.
I emphasise, therefore, that there are very strong reasons for disagreeing with Lords Amendment Nos. 12, 44, 47, 53 and 74, even if the ship repairing companies were to be removed from the schedule. I want to explain, because it is important that the House should be clear about the exact effects of these amendments.
Amendment No. 12 would prevent British Shipbuilders from carrying out any ship repair activities except through the companies named in Schedule 2. But there is already a major ship repair group—North-East Coast Shiprepairers—in public ownership, as I have pointed out, and it is the intention to bring this group into British Shipbuilders. In Committee the Government accepted an

amendment that has the effect of vesting North-East Coast Shiprepairers in British Shipbuilders, even though, as a holding company, it does not appear in Schedule 2. This was because of the strong feeling that the most effective structure for the ship repair group under British Shipbuilders would be achieved by vesting the group as a whole. There was no difference between the two sides of the Committee on that point, but Lords Amendment No. 12 would prevent it, which would be very damaging.
Furthermore, if British Shipbuilders were to acquire by agreement a privately owned ship repairing company, it would be forced by Amendment No. 12 to operate this undertaking through one of the companies listed in Schedule 2. Because of this, the amendment would place a severe constraint on British Shipbuilders by preventing it from setting up the most effective organisational structure.
The purpose of the group of Lords Amendments Nos. 44, 47, 53 and 74 is to allow the naval shipbuilder, Vosper Thornycroft, which has a separate ship repair division, to hive off this activity from the company to the parent group, without consent. This is because Vosper Thornycroft's ship repair division, which is a substantial operation, would not escape public ownership by reason of Amendments Nos. 77, 78 and 80.
But there are several other shipbuilding companies in Schedule 2—Hall Russell, Robb Caledon, Swan Hunter Shipbuilders, Smiths Dock, Goole Shipbuilding and Repairing Co.—which carry out ship repairing in the same company and which might be affected by these amendments. It would be difficult to separate ship repairing from shipbuilding in these companies, and to do so would be to lose the flexibility that exists at present in combining both activities in one company. Flexibility would also be lost to a certain extent by hiving off the ship repairing division of Vosper Thornycroft.
To include this group of amendments would allow companies, if they so wished, to break up the existing company structure in which ship repair operations are closely integrated with shipbuilding, and this would be to the serious disadvantage of British Shipbuilders.
In asking the House to disagree with these amendments, I must point out that we are discussing three different groups with three different rationales, and I hope that in approaching the matter, hon. Members who seek to remove companies from Schedule 2—with which we would disagree—will not feel that they will also have to support the other amendments, because to do so would be very damaging to the companies and to British Shipbuilders when it comes into being.

Mr. Tom King: We have now moved to a very important group of amendments affecting this part of the Bill. Our strong opinion is that ship repairing should not be included in the Bill. We had a tied vote at the end of the last debate. I do not know whether one Labour Member was so revolted by the Minister's speech on that occasion that he could not stomach voting for him, but I hope that my contribution, together with some of the anomalies and paradoxes in what the Minister has said about ship repairing, will persuade at least some hon. Members opposite not to support him again. The Minister of State went on at length about certain amendments involved in this group, particularly the leading amendment, No. 12. But because of the impossible situation in which we find ourselves we can have no meaningful discussion on a number of important points and no opportunity to vote upon them. We can have only a very limited number of votes. The only amendments on which we can vote effectively is the group referred to by the Minister of State, Nos 77, 78 and 80. That does not mean to say that we recoil from the other Lords amendments, but we are in an impossible position because of the guillotine procedure.
8.0 p.m.
We have been round this course before, probably more times than the Minister of State and I care to remember. I have heard nothing yet which is a convicing argument for the case for including ship repairing. It is an entirely different sort of industry from the ship construction industry. It is very much a service industry. In many instances it is a cost-plus industry which depends on service good will with customers. But we have established these points before. If one were looking for an industry which was less

suitable for nationalisation, it would be difficult to find one more unsuitable and less appropriate for this legislation.
The Minister of State adduced one new fact since we discussed these problems before. He has been travelling. He has been to Korea and Japan. He has ideas about what is happening in Korea and he referred with admiration to the dynamic management. I do not know what he thought about the dynamic wage rates and the hours of work.

Mr. Kaufman: Perhaps I can tell the hon. Gentleman that some of that dynamism is not appreciated by the workers in Japan since they work a 60-hour week for £20.

Mr. King: That is exactly the point I had in mind. I was in Japan myself and I know the Japanese attitude to this.
The Minister of State said that when he discussed ship repairing with the Japanese they looked amazed. If the hon. Gentleman told them that he was the man who will be in charge of ship repairing and shipbuilding, and that he has never been involved with ship repairing or shipbuilding in his life, I should think that the amazed look never went off their faces. The Japanese probably thought that he was referring to some rather arcane point. The Japanese are very polite people and rarely understand what we are actually saying. That is another problem. The Japanese have been used as evidence that it would be wrong to delete ship repairing. That is the first new argument that we have had as to why ship repairing is relevant to the Bill. On reflection, however, I do not think it is a very good one.
I shall not weary the House with a repetition of the arguments about ship repairing in detail. As I have explained, when we vote on the group of amendments at a later stage I hope that hon. Members who have positively considered the situation will support us in the Lobby.

Mr. John Evans: As someone who started work in a shipyard at 14 and who worked in ship-repair yards and engineering establishments until I came to this House, I support the Government in disagreeing with the Lords. I doubt whether the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has ever worked in a ship-repairing yard. At least I can


claim that I have worked in a considerable number of ship-repair establishments.
All of us who have worked in the industry stand back amazed at those who suggest that shipbuilding and ship repairing are two separate industries. They have two extremely important things in common—first ships, and secondly men. Any shipyard worker is capable of transferring his affections from the shipbuilding industry to the ship-repairing industry. The men often do.
For many years I worked in one of the shipyards on the Tyne which is one of the most famous names in shipbuilding. That was Hawthorn Leslie, which was a composite yard. We were building and repairing ships at the same time, and workers transferred from the shipbuilding berth to the ship-repair berth. I worked at Swan Hunter and other yards on Tyneside and I do not regard the two industries as in any way separate. I simply regarded myself as working on the building or repairing of a vessel. Whether I worked in the engine room, the boiler room or on the deck, I was simply a ship worker. Everyone in the industry regards himself in exactly the same light.
A noble Viscount in the other place referred to me on Second Reading as someone who had worked in five yards in one year. In fact I worked in seven yards in one year. The noble Lord said that I moved in order to improve either my conditions or prospects. But I moved for the same reason as most shipyard workers do—because I got the sack. It is now called redundancy. In those days we called it the sack. Some of us used to get it at 24 hours' notice.
We are all aware of the legacy of evil industrial relations which has surrounded the industry, whether on the shipbuilding side or the ship-repair side. I did not move in order to improve my prospects. My prospect at any one of the yards at which I worked was to get the sack when the ships ran out, as they frequently did because of the cyclical nature of both sides of the industry.
Many speakers, who have little knowledge of the industry, constantly refer to the industry as two separate industries. When reading the debates in the other place, I was surprised that Lord Inchcape—a famous name in shipbuilding—made the mistake or referring to them as sepa-

rate industries. He may be a famous name in shipping, but his knowledge of the industry from the building or repairing side is obviously sadly lacking. They are not separate industries. The ships and the workers are there, and it does not matter to the workers which yard they work in. They are interchangeable.
Indeed, the trade union movement is organised through the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and the employers themselves are organised in a joint body, the National Association of Shipbuilders and Ship Repairers. The workers and the employers recognise that the industries are indivisible. I doubt whether the noble Lords, or Conservative Members opposite, who obviously would not know a shipyardworker if they fell over one, would be able to tell the House very much about an industry which is centred mostly in the development regions.
An issue which has exercised many people's minds for a long time concerns Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. We shall no doubt, hear more on this score. As an ex-worker in the industry, I recognise only too clearly the fears which have been expressed by those workers. They are afraid that if their firm is taken into public ownership the ships to be repaired will be diverted either to Merseyside, the Tyne or the Clyde. That argument is fatuous nonsense. In many respects the workers have been entirely misled.

Mr. A. P. Costain: How can the hon. Gentleman assure the workers that that will not happen? Does he not agree that, while shipbuilding and ship repairing may be similar in trade, their clients are different and that the smaller firms have a better chance of getting the clients? That is what brings employment.

Mr. Evans: Had the hon. Gentleman contained himself, he would have found that I was coming to that point. The Bill does not contain any power, and there is no suggestion that there will be any power, for the central board to direct a ship to be repaired in any area. Indeed, if there were any such suggestion it would be arrant nonsense. The Government would be stupid to put in such a clause. A ship owner who was directed to send his ship to be repaired in a particular yard to which he did not want it to go


could simply send it to another repair yard anywhere else in the world. He would not be directed. Those who suggest that there is a fear of direction are either attempting to mislead the workers or are ignorant of the industry. There is no requirement in the Bill to direct ships anywhere.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If what the hon. Gentleman is saying is correct, will he advise the House why, when the specific question was put three times running to the Minister in charge of the Government side of the Committee whether the client would be able to specify the repairer at which his work is executed, each time the Minister refused to answer? If the answer was "Yes", why did not the Minister say so?

Mr. Evans: The House will appreciate that I cannot answer for the Minister. I can answer as someone who has worked in the industry and who recognises that there is no power to do that. Swan Hunter, the ship repairers for which I worked, had no power to direct a ship owner who wanted to have shin repaired at a specific yard to go to another yard. The ship owner has the final power to send his ship to be repaired where he thinks he will get the best deal and where he will get the job done at the time he requires it. it would be nonsense for the Government to attempt to put such a clause in the Bill.
The strongest arguments have been on behalf of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. It is significant that we have had no arguments from the ship repair workers at Tyneside. Merseyside, Teesside, Glasgow or Belfast. Those workers have not lobbied Parliament and sought to influence Members of Parliament by giving them lunches and dinners. They are delighted that the industry is to be nationalised.
It is important to get across to the workers the strategy for the industry, which is that there will be a major ship-repair establishment on every major estuary in Great Britain. One of the great potential growth areas in ship repairing is the Bristol Channel. It is ideally placed on the main shipping lanes between Europe and North America. That is what lies behind the objections made by the directors of that company. In the past they have wanted considerable

sums of Government money to increase their facility on that estuary. As the Bristol Channel is such an important potential growth area, the workers will benefit from the Bill.
It is essential to end the uncertainty that hangs over the lives of thousands of men and women and their families who depend upon this industry for their livelihood. They have proved that they can build and repair the best ships in the world. I sincerely hope that tonight, at long last, we shall end that uncertainty and bring the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry into public ownership.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I repeat, three times in Committee the direct question was put to the Minister, who has now abandoned the Bench—

Mr. Roger Stott: He is having consultations.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I did not say why he had abandoned the Bench; I merely said that he had abandoned the Bench.
Three times on the same morning, in Committee, the question was asked: will the customer be able to specify where his order is executed? If he cannot, as the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) realised, many customers will take their orders to Amsterdam, Lisbon, Hamburg, Gothenburg and elsewhere. Had the answer been "Yes", the Minister would have given it. Why did not the Minister answer? We are entitled to assume that it was because the answer was not "Yes".
We are also entitled to expect that in his winding-up speech tonight the Minister will suddenly announce that the answer is "Yes", in the hope that gullible people will thereby be included among those who will vote against the amendment.
No assurance from the Minister is worth anything. We are discussing what is or is not in the Bill, not what assurances Ministers give. There is not a court of law in the land that will uphold any assurance given by a Minister. Courts of law uphold the law, not what Ministers say they hope it is, wish it to be, or intend it to be once it has received Royal Assent. We are dealing with lawmaking, not with statements of intent


from Ministers. That is fools' gold, that has been taken too often in the past.
What the Bill will achieve for the ship repairing industry is politely called rationalisation. That means, in practice, that in shipbuilding areas where there is a large Labour vote firms will be kept alive by diverting to them ship repairing business that would otherwise have gone to other ship repairers. The total volume of business, and therefore of employment, will be smaller. Once we have nationalisation there are higher costs, and a new stratum of top management is invented. Who pays for that? At the end of the day the customer pays for it—as we all know from nationalised electricity—and the taxpayer.
Every potential customer from abroad has an option. He does not have to go to any repairer in Britain unless the damage suffered is so acute that he has to go to the nearest one that happens to be British. That is why the Bill is an attack on the total level of employment in the ship repairing industry. It is not a question of redistribution; it is a question of the total level of employment, which will be less if the Bill goes through.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The Bill is to nationalise shiprepairing, not shipping. The hon. Gentleman talks as though, once the Bill is through, the Government will be able to say to the shipping industry "You must send your ship to this yard." When I was in a nationalised ship repairing yard three weeks ago I noticed that it had three ships in, each of which came from a different foreign country. Most of the ships repaired in the nationalised ship repairing yards at present are foreign ships, and foreign ships will continue to come here when other ship repair yards are brought under the same umbrella.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely right. He has proved our case, not the Government's case. It is not the shipping industry throughout the world which is to be nationalised. Shipping companies are free to take their business elsewhere, and that is what those which at present bring their business to Britain will do. That is the basic case against the measure. It takes away from the customer much of

the element of choice that remains with him at present. That choice is built largely on reputation generated over many years. That is what will be destroyed, and that is why we are opposed to the Bill.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I speak for a large number of my constituents working in the ship-repairing industry. In many cases they are working in yards that were taken over because of the financial failure of the old private companies, not because of their inefficiency as repair yards. The yards became involved in other industries that led them to disaster. If it had not been for the action of the Government, those yards might well have had a large number of unemployed on their books as against their present activity.
I voice the concern of those working in those yards today. They are concerned lest there should be any suggestion of the yards returning to private hands. They want an assurance that the Bill will be completed as rapidly as possible, so that they can get on with the work that they are anxious to do, which the Opposition are now preventing them from doing.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Unlike the occupants of the Front Benches, I have not had the pleasure of going to Japan or anywhere east of Caernarvon this summer.
The circumstances of the ship repairing industry in Wales concern me much more than any circumstances that may hold true in Japan. We have been over the grounds of the argument many times in the past and I shall not bore the House by repeating them now, save to restate that in my belief the ship repairing industry needs to be very much more fast-moving. It will have to operate within a shorter time cycle, and the attitude adopted to sales and marketing needs to be much more aggressive. There is a need to go out and look for more work, and that needs to be done more frequently. We must realise that we are dealing with a service-based industry.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) suggested that ship repairing and shipbuilding were one and the same industry. He argued that the product is the same, and that the men have the same sympathies. That may be said of the motor industry and the garages, but in


this case the marketing aspect is essentially different. Unless the marketing is right and the product is right the industry will not progress. The people in the ship repairing industry may have the same skills as those working in the yards, but it is the marketing that is the critical factor for the repairing sector.
If the companies that are included in Schedule 2 are nationalised, the opportunity to undertake the marketing and to get in the work will be decreased. On 28th July I quoted the letter from Holter-Sorenson and Company, which reads:
with our experience with nationalised companies, we must regret to announce that, in the event of nationalisation of your firm, we shall no longer be interested in making use of your docking and repair facilities.
The danger is that that will tar the whole of the ship repairing industry, which would be tragic.
On Monday the Minister of State responded to my question at Question Time by saying that if my hon. Friends and I voted against the Bill we should have to take into consideration what we would thereby be doing to the aircraft industry or the shipbuilding industry. I can see a certain amount of logic in that argument, but if that is the case, would it not be much better to accept the Lords amendment concerning ship repairing? That case has been made repeatedly in this Chamber, in another place, throughout the media and by other sources throughout these islands. Surely it is a clear-cut amendment. If it were accepted, there would be no consequential problems.
The hon. Member for Newton said that it was important that we should have an end to the uncertainty. That is right, and one way to end it would be by accepting the amendment. I put it to the House that the only way in which we shall have an end to the uncertainty—

Mr. John Evans: Mr. John Evans rose—

Mr. Wigley: No, I shall not give way, as time is short.
The only way in which we shall end the uncertainty is by removing this group of companies from the Bill. Last week, in a debate in another place, Lord Harmar-Nicholls said that it was the opinion of counsel that if this part of the Bill remained it would without doubt open up the grave question of hybridity.

I shall not quote from the 40-page document at length, but it is important to draw the attention of the House to the grave difficulties that the Bill will face in another place unless the amendment is accepted.
In the document to which Lord Harmar-Nicholls referred—I shall refer briefly to the Cammell Laird Company—it is said:
My opinion is contrary to that adopted by the Government. The Cammell Laird Company does not qualify as an associated ship repairing company; and it follows that both J. B. Howie Ltd. and Western ship repairers are wrongly included in Schedule 2 Part 1.
In conclusion it states:
There is grave doubt about the correctness of the Government's view and room for further inevstigation and inquiry before the Government's views on these important questions are accepted and acted upon.
That is the opinion of Leolin Price, a well-respected counsel in these matters.
The Government, by insisting that the ship repairers should remain in the Bill, are increasing uncertainty for the aircraft industry in places such as Flint as well as increasing uncertainty for the shipbuilding industry. Unless we are clear-cut and accept the amendment, removing ship repairing from the Bill, the uncertainty will continue, and possibly the whole Bill will be lost for another 12 months. Whatever line is taken towards the nationalisation of the aircraft industry, the shipbuilding industry and ship repairing, another 12 months of uncertainty will do no good to anyone.
I put it to the Government that at the end of this long debate on this issue they should accept the best possible bargain they can get and accept the amendment.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) ended what I was glad was a general debate by bringing in the tired and tattered issue of hybridity and quoting as his authority a legal opinion offered by Mr. Leolin Price, whose qualification for offering the opinion is that he is a leading Welsh Conservative. It is offered as an impartial and objective legal opinion but it is a piece of Tory advocacy. That gentleman has put together 40 badly argued pages, but they do not add up to an unquestioned legal judgment. All it means is that a Tory wishes that the Bill were hybrid.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister has said that it is not an unquestioned legal judgment. Does he accept, therefore, that there is a question about it and that that question will have to be answered in another place, which will take time and delay the Bill?

Mr. Kaufman: I do not accept that. This issue was raised by Lord Colville of Culross, who caused people to grub about on the shelves in Edinburgh. He was trying to argue that something was No. 32 rather than No. 31 and that, therefore, the Bill was hybrid. We descended so far into the trivia of filing systems, let alone ship repairing, that the whole thing became absurd. There was the attempt to prove that a land reclamation and dredging company was a ship-repairing company. There was an attempt to prove that a sugar company was a ship-repairing company. There was the attempt to prove that BP was a ship-repairing company. It was absurd to the point of lunacy.
If the hon. Member for Caernarvon is wishing me to acknowledge that someone suggests that the Bill is hybrid and that, therefore, there is suspicion that that is so, I suggest that the fact that my good old friend the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is sometimes called an eccentric does not mean that he is unquestionably a lunatic. I am afraid that that is the level of argument that we are being asked to debate.

Mr. Tom King: Will the Minister reconsider what he said about that opinion? He knows that if he said it outside the House he could lay himself open to a grave charge indeed. I do not know the status under which this opinion—which I have seen and read and which to me looked perfectly convincing—was offered in a professional capacity. I understand that the gentleman in question—I do not know him personally—is a distinguished Queen's Counsel. The Minister said that that gentleman put aside any legal responsibility as legal counsel to a client and deliberately debauched those views for political motives. The gentleman in question is not here to defend himself.
I do not want to raise the temperature in the House. However, I ask the Minister, whose only answer on two occasions was to allude to the gentleman's political

persuasions, to withdraw his remark. I remind him that there are some distinguished Queen's Counsel who are supporters of the Labour Party. Indeed, there are distinguished members of the Bar who may have political leanings of one sort or another. However, it does not lie in the mouth of anybody to impugn their legal judgments or advice or to suggest that such matters are part of biased political opinion. I urge the Minister to withdraw his remarks.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman speaks as though this gentleman were some kind of vestal priest. The gentleman in question gave his legal opinion for a fee. He did not come forward as a public-spirited citizen to state his view but was invited by a ship-repairing company to provide a legal opinion for a large fee, and that was what he did. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is wrong with that?"] There is nothing wrong with it, but the fact that a man is a QC does not make him sacred or non-political. The right hon. and learned Members for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) are Queen's Counsel, but that does not make them non-political. There is nothing wrong with being political. We are all political in this House. What I am saying is that there is no special status to be given to a legal opinion so provided. It has no status other than that of being the opinion of one man.

Mr. Tom King: The Minister is trying to ride away from the point I made. Of course, people are entitled to political opinions. The hon. Gentleman expresses his opinions. What he inferred however, was that the gentleman in question, who had a professional responsibility and who works under a professional code of conduct, sold shoddy goods and distorted those goods so as not properly to discharge his professional function. The Minister has made a very grave charge. If he made it outside this House, he would lay himself open to grace and serious damages. It is a gross abuse of the privilege of Parliament to act in that way.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Kaufman: I did not raise the question. It was mentioned by the hon. Member for Caernarvon. Until the hon. Gentleman raised the matter, we were


conducting a general debate on ship repairing. I wish it had remained that way. However, the hon. Gentleman sought to bring in the question of hybridity and a legal opinion. I repeat that that legal opinion is a piece of advocacy from one man. It has no status other than as a piece of advocacy from one man. I do not say that that piece of advocacy was politically motivated, and if it is thought that I so implied I withdraw that comment. The man who gave that opinion has a political affiliation, and I have every right to draw attention to it. I reject that piece of advocacy. I am sure that it was supplied with all integrity, but I merely make the point that the man himself is politically motivated. On the other hand, I regard the opinion as a pretty poor piece of advocacy.
Now that we have sorted that out, let us get back to a brief speech about ship repairing—the speech I would have been happy to make if it had not been for the remarks of the hon. Member for Caernarvon.
I wish to mention the speech of the hon. Member for Tiverton because I thought that he made some valid points. The hon. Gentleman said, as he has said on many occasions, that he will not accept a Minister's assurance on this, that and the other because he likes to see words written into a Bill. I think he is right. Therefore, I wish to draw his attention to Clause 5 of the Bill as it left this House in which we laid down the following:
decentralisation of management and decision-taking to separate profit centres in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing areas of Great Britain, and in particular of Scotland and Wales and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, in relation to sales, pricing, production, the formulation and implementation of investment programmes, manpower planning and management, industrial relations, and responsibility for financial performance".
That is in the Bill and if it is carried it will, of course, be in the Act when it is passed. That is better than an assurance from me.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: But that does not stop the customer who wants to go to Bristol Channel being moved to Walls-end. Both places are in England.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is not aware of the nature of Bristol

Channel Ship Repairers. All its yards are in Wales. It is not in England at all. The hon. Gentleman has this fantasy about the Government moving ship-repair work to Labour areas. If we were to be so fatuously motivated as to intervene, I should point out that the main yard of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers is in Cardiff, South-East, the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Therefore, if we were to switch work to suit any member of the Government or of the Labour Party, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would take a great interest. But that is not the way we intend to run the industry. It will be run by British Shipbuilders in a nonpartisan and commercial way.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 disagreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 16 agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 17 to 25 disagreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 26 to 33 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment No. 34 disagreed to.

Amendments made to the Bill in lieu thereof: In page 31, line 26, leave out from second 'of' to 'the' in line 29 and insert
'such amounts as to ensure that the aggregate payments of dividend for that period on those securities are equal to the maximum amounts permitted under section 24 above or, if larger amounts have been approved under section 23(1) above, to'.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

Lords Amendments Nos. 35 to 42 agreed to. [One with Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment No. 43 disagreed to.

Amendment made to the Bill in lieu thereof: In page 41, line 37, leave out from 'repaid' to 'or' in line 42 and insert
'any sum the right to repayment of which, it the sum had not been repaid, would, following the service of a notice under section 21 above, have been treated as a security or part of a security under subsection (6) of that section'.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

Lords Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 disagreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 46 agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 47 disagreed to.

Clause 35

COMPENSATION FOR VESTING OF SECURITIES

Lords amendment: No. 48, in page 48, line 24, at end insert:
or, if on application by the stockholders' representative or the Secretary of State, the arbitration tribunal consider that, having regard to all the circumstances, that amount does not represent fair compensation, such amount as the tribunal shall determine to be fair compensation in respect of those securities.

Mr. Les Huckfield: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also take Lords Amendment No. 51.

Mr. Huckfield: I put it to the House that we should reject these amendments because they fundamentally alter the compensation terms, which we believe to be fair. The reasons for believing them to be fair have been rehearsed in Committee and in the House. They are fair because they are based upon stock market independent and objective valuations. They are also fair because provision is made for independent arbitration.
Lords Amendment No. 48 would destroy all of this, apart from which it would be a breach of faith to change the arrangement for companies that have been operating on that basis. If an opportunity were provided in the amendment for a fresh set of negotiations within different parameters, it would provide the opportunity for compensation to be increased, leading to an increased burden upon the taxpayer, and that would be unacceptable to the Government.
Lords Amendment No. 51 provides that a tribunal should take into account all relevant factors. That is already provided for, however. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to reject the two Lords amendments.

Mr. Heseltine: These arguments have been well rehearsed. We believe that the compensation terms are basically unfair and are therefore a major deterrent to investment in the private sector. It is difficult to choose which of the amendments we should insist upon, but on balance I think that Lords Amendment No. 51, which gives flexibility to the arbitration tribunal, is the better, and I

therefore recommend that my hon. Friends press it to a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 49 disagreed to.

Clause 36

PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION

Lords Amendment No. 50 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 38

BASE VALUE OF OTHER SECURITIES

Lords amendment: No. 51, in page 52 line 41, at end insert:
taking into account all factors which the arbitration tribunal consider relevant in order to ensure that the compensation in respect of the securities shall be fair.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Bates]:—

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 304.

[For Division List 399 see col. 777]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 disagreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 54 disagreed to.

Amendment made to the Bill in lieu thereof: In page 57, line 4, leave out from 'of' to end of line 8 and insert:
'any sum the right to repayment of which, if the sum had not been repaid, would, following the service of such a notice, have been treated as a security or part of a security under section 21(6) above.'.—[Mr. Bates.]

Lords Amendment No. 55 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 47

RIGHT OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN SHIP BUILDING OR SHIP-REPAIRING TO OBJECT TO PRACTICES OF BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS OR ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES

Lords amendment: No. 56, in page 64, line 26, leave out from "in" to end of line 27 and insert:
one or more of the activities specified in section 2(1) or (2) above, other than—
(a) a Corporation, or".

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment [Mr. Bates]:—

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 306.

[For Division List 300 see col. 783]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 57 to 65 disagreed to.

Clause 48

DUTY OF BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS TO CONSULT ETC., WITH NORTHERN IRELAND STATE-CONTROLLED SHIPBUILDERS

Lords Amendment No. 66 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 67, in page 65, line 45, at end insert—
(2) In carrying out their obligations the Corporations shall make available to the bodies corporate referred to in subsection (1) above any information or facilities which the said bodies corporate—

(a) could easonably expect to have had access to as members of their respective United Kingdom industries before vesting date; and
(b) will be made available by each Corporation to their wholly owned subsidiaries after vesting date.
(3) The information or facilities made available pursuant to subsection (2) above may be the subject of such reasonable charges as are agreed between the parties.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Bates]:—

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes, 295.

[For Division List 401 see col. 787]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 68 to 73 agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 disagreed to.

Schedule 2

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Lords amendment: No. 76, in page 81, leave out lines 15 to 17.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Bates]:—

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 305.

[For Division List 402 see col. 793]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 77, in page 81, leave out lines 19 to 30.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Bates]:—

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 308.

[For Division List 403 see col. 797]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Alf Bates: With permission, I beg to move that the House doth disagree with the Lords in Amendments Nos. 78 to 82 inclusive.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I regret that the hon. Gentleman is moving a little too fast for the Chair.
It now being six hours after the commencement of the proceedings, it is my duty under the Order of 8th November to call upon the Minister formally to move in succession any motions to disagree with any remaining Lords amendments.

Lords Amendments Nos. 78 to 82 disagreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am now required to put the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining amendments.

Lords Amendments Nos. 83 to 85 agreed to.

Motion made, and Question,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Heseltine, Mr. Les Huckfield, Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Tom King and Mr. Pendry be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Amendment proposed: After "Pendry", insert "and Mr. Wigley".—[Mr. Beith.]

Question put, forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 310.

[For Division List 404 see col. 803]

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question,
That Mr. Heseltine, Mr. Les Huckfield, Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Tom King and Mr. Pendry be members of the Committee.

put forthwith, pursuant to Order [10th November], and agreed to.

Motion made and Question,
That three be the quorum.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

DRIVER AND VEHICLE LICENSING CENTRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Mr. Giles Shaw (Pudsey) rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) can make his speech without so much assistance from his hon. Friends behind him.

Mr. Shaw: I welcome the assistance of my hon. Friends but I really want the assistance of the Minister in answering my questions.
I am grateful for being able to debate the subject of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea, although I must confess that I regret the need to do so. No hon. Member on either side of the House can have failed to be made aware of the difficulties which his constituents have encountered in having their documentation handled by the Swansea centre. I hope that the Government will give me some reassurances which will

give tangible benefits to mortorists and taxpayers, who are, in most cases, the same individual.
The decision to establish this centre at Swansea goes back to the Ministry of Transport working party set up in 1965 to examine the problems associated with the handling of the registration and licensing of vehicles. At that time there was substantial evidence that a new system had to be found because the rapid rise in vehicle ownership was making the old system and the cost of transferring log books and registrations too difficult to do on a local basis. The report of that working party recommended a centralised and computerised system and the recommendations were embodied in the Vehicle and Driving Licences Act 1969.
The scheme rapidly ran into great difficulties. The timetable was extended and the system was found to be complicated and infinitely more costly than was originally envisaged. A report of the Public Accounts Committee which examined the system commented on the Department of Environment's attitude. Paragraph 39 said:
The Department agreed that the project had not been planned as well as it might have been and that decisions had been taken in 1968 on the basis of inadequate estimates. But they explained that the prime consideration at that time had been to proceed as quickly as possible with the new centralised system, since it was thought that the old system would be unable to cope wth the expected growth in driver and vehicle numbers.
If it were embarking upon this project now, the Department would have followed up the working party's report with a full feasibility study before proceeding.
The 1971 review recognised that the new system was more costly than the old, but the Government decided to go ahead. The Committee concluded that it was not surprised that planning and timetables were found to be unrealistic since the Department embarked upon such a major and novel computer project without undertaking a thorough feasibility study and on the basis of inadequate costs and staff estimates. It is a very sad tale. It goes some way to excuse, if excuse is required, the consequential difficulties that many of our constituents have had in dealing with the centre.
On Second Reading of the Act, the cost of running the centre was estimated at £11·3 million for the first full year.
In addition, it was obvious that there was a large capital cost, estimated at £15,750,000, for the establishment of a large office and computer complex. In December 1975, a Written Answer stated that the cost of issuing licences for the current year—1974–75—was £26·3 million, almost exactly double the original estimate. The estimate for 1975–76, given last January, was £31·1 million.

Mr. Ian Gow: In view of these alarming statistics, has my hon. Friend considered the possibility of denationalising the centre?

Mr. Shaw: I hardly think that that would be an appropriate matter for this debate, but I hope that my hon. Friend's assiduity in seeking to denationalise large public undertakings will find further fertile ground for his Ten-Minute Rule Bill campaign.
One cannot deny that the escalation in costs is appalling. At the time of Second Reading, it was estimated that when the centre was in full operation, together with its network of local licensing offices, 5,000 staff would be involved. That figure was roughly comparable with that of the licensing system then established through the local authorities. Some 185 local authority units were involved in the licensing of vehicles at the time.
In another parliamentary answer last January, the staff complement was quoted, on the basis of the establishment of April 1976, as 6,480. Yet the local licensing offices now number only 81 as opposed to the original 185 local authority offices. Therefore, the number of staff has gone up by 20 per cent. over the original estimate. I am confident that the Minister will agree that if a centralised computer system was to be established, a significant saving on the staffing would almost surely ensue if it were done efficiently.
Is the citizen motorist or taxpayer really getting value for money? We know that there has been a considerable number of complaints about the operation of the centre. It involves delay, confusion, irritation and, in many cases, considerable anger. Like other hon. Members, I have had a number of constituency complaints. One came from a company which is part of the GEC group. The general manager wrote:

The Road Fund licence of one of our company cars, used by a representative who drives about the country permanently, fell due for renewal on the 1st December 1975. Application was made to the DVLC on 7th November 1975 for a new licence. On the 8th December, when the licence had not been received, my Chief Accountant rang the Bradford Metropolitan Police to establish the legal position only to find that he was speaking to a police vehicle driver, who had had to revert to office duties because he had not received his Driving Licence, despite the fact that he had applied for it some 6 weeks before.
The letter goes on:
The driver in question has been stopped by the Police and is liable to be charged for failing to display a current Road Fund Licence.
My constituent asked me:
Does this mean, therefore, that the Government intends such vehicles used in connection with manufacturing commerce to be taken off the road whilst they issue a piece of paper?".
This raises an important issue in my mind—the extent to which prosecution might be involved through no fault of the applicant for a driving licence certificate. I followed this us in Questions at the time and the then junior Minister at the Department of the Environment suggested that the relevant section of the Act had not been invoked. He added that there was no prosecution under Section 8(1) for unlicensed use of a vehicle if application for licence renewal had been made within 14 days of the expiry of the previous licence.
That is an important point which I ask the Minister to confirm tonight. Can he categorically state that, providing there is proof of an application having been made, the 14 days' grace in that sense is elastic? Can he confirm that prosecution will not be undertaken and that those who have vehicles in that condition may legitimately continue to use them without fear of prosecution by the police?
The second point which frequently arises from consumer complaints involves administration. The Department has reasonably claimed that 98 per cent. of applications are dealt with within 10 working days. I hazard a guess whether 10 working days is really satisfactory. Certainly in private industry if one is involved with getting orders and despatching them, 10 working days seems far too long. I hope that the Minister can say that that is by no means a satisfactory level and that it is a target that the Department sincerely hopes to reduce.
If 98 per cent. of applications are dealt with in that time, as the Member for the noble constituency of Pudsey, I seem to have the other two per cent. within my constituency. I would mention Mr. Thornton of Guiseley, whose registration documents took four months; Mrs. Napier of Horsforth, whose application took just over three months; Mr. Thompson of Guiseley, whose licence took 14 weeks; Mr. Constantine—an imperial name—whose registration documents took from October 1975 to March 1976 to come through.
Let me pay tribute to those in the centre who have the unenviable task of communicating with the public. Someone who deserves a mention is Mrs. Wheat, who was in charge of communicating with the public and did so with fairness, distinction and good grace. I am only saddened that the effort has been too much and she has since been replaced. However, they do their best to communicate continuously about this problem.
Much of the suffering will now be removed by the 81 local licensing offices which the Department has recently opened. I hope the Minister will confirm that over the counter services and postal services will be available to all those who live within their area, as is the case with the 1,800 post offices which handle this matter. The highly taxed motorist must be mystified when he considers that those local taxation offices were swept away and replaced by local taxation offices operating under the Department of Transport.
I would briefly refer to cherished number plates. Whatever the technical position under the Act, a guarantee was given on Second Reading of the Act when the then Minister stated:
There will be arrangements for cherished numbers."—[Official Report, 22nd November 1968; Vol. 733, c. 1711.]
That was confirmed as recently as the debates on the Finance Bill this year.
It is a matter for grave doubt whether these arrangements are working. As the Minister knows, this is the subject of a major industrial dispute.
I received this afternoon a telegram from the motor traders of Basingstoke who asked me to see what could be done

to resolve the registration ban. They say that it is seriously crippling sales and cash flows within the British Motor trade nation wide. Those traders represent Ford, Austin, Morris, Jaguar, Triumph and Rover cars. It is not right that the Government, who are shareholders and stockholders of British Leyland and who also are responsible for this system, should stand idly by while this disruption to a public service occurs. I hope the Minister will say what action he is taking to resolve the matter. Will he please say whether there are any new proposals to be worked out and if so will he undertake that such proposals will be laid before this House for debate and, it is to be hoped, approved.
On the subject of cherished number plates, in relation to which I understand there is a backlog of 27,000 applications, will the Minister take care not to regard this just as an excuse for abandoning this facility altogether? The public like it and are willing to pay for it.
Finally, it is important that we should pay due regard to the fact that the situation at Swansea is unhappy because it contained at the outset a major planning mistake which gave rise to serious problems. The lesson has been truly learned that bureaucracy and bungling in estimating and planning of computer programmes can leave the taxpayer with a mighty bill, the motorist in tremendous confusion and the citizen mystified by the whole process. This lesson must be learned by all Departments, not just by the Department of the Environment.
On the subject of public expenditure, it must be pointed out that more persons are employed in the centre than before—and indeed the Estimate moved from £12 million to £31 million. The fact is that the public are confused and irritated by the whole system as operated. Admittedly, the system produces good results for the police in regard to the keeping of records, which is first class, but it was primarily designed as a system for the registration of licensed vehicles on behalf of the motoring public.
The Minister owes the House some explanation, if not reassurance, that the problems associated with the project have been removed so that the motorist, the citizen, and, above all, the taxpayer may


look forward to a slightly more profitable future.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Donald Anderson.

Mr. Shaw: I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen).

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I wish to take part in this debate because the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre is in my constituency and employs 2,500 people. My constituents are deeply offended by the baying and unjustified criticism of the Civil Service which often comes from the Opposition.
I wish first to refer to staffing. The centralised system will, when complete, employ 10 per cent. fewer staff than the old LTOs and, in any event, by that time the old system would have collapsed under strain. Therefore, the points made by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) on staffing are irrelevant.
There has been a steady improvement in performance since the teething problems in 1973. They were caused in part by trying to secure up-to-date and accurate records—records which the old LTO system was failing to maintain.
What is the turn-round time? Over 95 per cent. of driving licences are issued within 10 working days or less; in regard to vehicle licensing, over 85 per cent of replies to applications are returned within three working days, and 96 per cent. within five working days.
Where driving licences are not handled immediately, it is often the case that there is a complex problem such as a medical difficulty or a query about an endorsement.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the convention of the House that on an Adjournment debate only the Minister replying for the Government shall speak in addition to the Member who raises the matter unless he chooses to give way to one of his hon. Friends?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It so happens that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) approached the hon.
Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) and received permission to intervene.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is correct in that the time of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) would come from the Minister's time. However, I also made arrangements for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) to intervene.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has no control over the allocation of time in these matters. It is only to be hoped that the Minister will be allowed time to reply. I am fully aware that one other Member has the hon. Gentleman's permission to intervene.

Mr. Anderson: Most of the delays caused by the returning of documents to the public are the result of incorrectly completed applications.

Mr. Anthony Steen: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With respect, there is no point in a speech from the Government Benches coming first and a further intervention from the Opposition Benches coming afterwards.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that more time is being wasted than is being gained.

Mr. Anderson: I understand that the ratio of complaints from MPs is two for every 100,000 transactions. There are now almost one million transactions every week. It is unfair for the hon. Gentleman and so many of his colleagues to condemn the centre because of past problems and to highlight certain features given the vast number of transactions that now pass through the centre. Much of the criticism is ignorant and highly offensive to those of my hard-working constituents who are doing a valued task on behalf of the community.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I am most grateful for the opportunity to take a few minutes of the time of the House to talk about the cherished number plate dispute.
A number of my constituents and I are concerned because the dispute is outside the whole basis of industrial action.


According to a letter I have from the Department of Transport, it was caused because certain abuses upset the staff. Is it the position that our society can be disrupted because a matter upsets a staff?
Why is it that some of my constituents with cherished number plates are prevented from purchasing a cherished number for a new car because it upsets the staff? If a person may go on holiday all over the world without anyone objecting, what is the rationale if the Minister is to tell the House that a minority group of staff can object and, therefore, affect the rights of a great section of the population?

10.48 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State lot Transport (Mr. John Horam): The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) has a long and, if I may say so, distinguished interest in consumer affairs. He has approached this problem from the point of view of the consumer, but I think that he will agree that possibly the DVLC has some administrative advantages for the police, for example. However, I wish to discuss the matter from the point of view of the user or consumer.
The first point to make is that the Government of the day went in for centralisation at Swansea because the existing local system was clearly showing signs of breaking down. Until the establishment of the DVLC, responsibility rested with 183 different local authorities.
As the hon. Gentleman said, in 1965 an interdepartmental committee, on which local authorities were represented, recommended centralisation because the old system was showing signs of imminent collapse. The driver and vehicle population was expected to continue to grow apace. Five million files a year were already being shuttled between local authorities. That is a thought to ponder upon. The only practical way to handle over 40 million records—driver and vehicle combined—centrally is with the aid of a computer. Therefore, a purpose-designed centre was planned for the outskirts of Swansea, with two sophisticated computer systems, one for drivers and one for vehicles, one of the largest batch-processing installations in Western Europe.
Responsibility for the licensing of drivers and the registration and licensing of vehicles was taken over by the Secretary of State for the Environment in 1971. It has now passed to the Secretary of State for Transport. The collapse of the local system, which was feared at the time, has been averted and the centralised system is working with increasing effectiveness. The overriding justification—the real belief in the late 1960s that there would be a collapse of the locally based system, which had no viable future—was justified. In that sense the "small" option of doing it locally was no longer available and it is not available now.
The second point is that, as with any new operation—particularly one on such a massive scale—there were teething troubles. They certainly appear to be a natural hazard of conversion to computer systems. The hon. Member for Pudsey seemed to imply that I was an expert on computers: I am not. However, they invariably involve initial problems.
The DVLC was also hit—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this—by unprecedented Civil Service strikes and stoppages at the beginning just when it was going "live". This halted the operation for about a fortnight at a crucial period, and there was an almighty log jam which took time to clear.
That inauspicious start is well behind us. Unfortunately, the popular image which the DVLC then gained still persists. But if it were true, the centre would long ago have ground to a halt.
Wrong estimates were made. The hon. Gentleman gave an example during his speech. The Public Accounts Committee went thoroughly into this matter. Mistakes were made, they have been acknowledged, and lessons have been learned.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, we accept that the staff will be 10 per cent. less than for the local system which we would have continued if we had not established Swansea. Performance has been fair.
Mention has been made of the fact that over 95 per cent. of all driver transactions are cleared in 10 working days. Those which are not cleared in that time include cases where medical investigation is necessary and where discrepancies in the information received have to be followed up.
I remind the House that that does not stop people from driving for that period. It is not a great inconvenience. Vehicle licences are handled within approximately three days, which is extremely fast. I accept that some people are concerned about the interval. I assure the House that people can carry on using vehicles without a licence during that period despite the fact that the 14 days have elapsed. The situation is well understood and the police are flexible.
The situation was well put by the Automobile Association which was quoted in a recent newspaper article:
A Government claim in the Commons that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea has overcome its early difficulties and now gives good service has been largely confirmed by the Automobile Association.
'There was a fair amount of trouble in the early days but the number of complaints from our members has dropped quite considerably', a spokesman said.
'It is not perfect by any means, but most of the wrinkles seem to have been ironed out.' 
I have talked to officials of the AA in the course of consultations on the transport document. I assure all Members that the AA is as assiduous as ever in protecting the interests of motorists. If the AA supports that statement, we may take it as an unobjectionable source as it is pro-motorist and would not overstate the position.
I turn now to the present system and what one can do by post and over the counter. The system for driving licences is that people must apply to Swansea by

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

Division List 397 [See col. 695]


Division No. 397.]
AYES
[5.18 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen


Anderson, Donald
Bradley, Tom
Concannon, J. D.


Archer, Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Conlan, Bernard


Armstrong, Ernest
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Corbett, Robin


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cowans, Harry


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Atkinson, Norman
Buchan, Norman
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchanan, Richard
Crawford, Douglas


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Cronin, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Campbell, Ian
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Bates, Alf
Canavan, Dennis
Cryer, Bob


Bean, R. E.
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Carmichael, Neil
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carter, Ray
Dalyell, Tarn


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davidson, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Cartwright, John
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Boardman, H.
Clemitson, Ivor
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cohen, Stanley
Deakins, Eric

post. All driving licence applications are handled through the post by Swansea. Vehicle licences are also dealt with by post through local vehicle offices or Swansea. However, the alternative still exists for obtaining vehicle licences over the counter at local vehicle offices or post offices.

I point out to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that one reason for maintaining the alternative of using local vehicle offices or post offices is to inject an element of healthy competition into the system. I hope that he will approve of that.

The registration document, the third item, is posted from Swansea and automatically follows from a first licence for a vehicle being granted. I think that that covers the situation.

Mr. Giles Shaw: What about cherished transfers?

Mr. Horam: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) also raised that matter. The House will know that two of the Civil Service staff associations have been taking industrial action over the—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Dean, Joseph (Leads West)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Prescott, John


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dempsey, James
Judd, Frank
Radice, Giles


Doig, Peter
Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Dormand, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Reid, George


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kerr, Russell
Richardson, Miss Jo


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunn, James A.
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dunnett, Jack
Lambie, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lamborn, Harry
Robinson, Geoffrey


Eadie, Alex
Lamond, James
Roderick, Caerwyn


Edge, Geoff
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lee, John
Rooker, J. W.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roper, John


English, Michael
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rose, Paul B.


Ennals, David
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, Ted


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lipton, Marcus
Ryman, John


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Litterick, Tom
Sandelson, Neville


Evans, John (Newton)
Lomas, Kenneth
Sedgemore, Brian


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Loyden, Eddie
Selby, Harry


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Luard, Evan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Short, Mrs Reneé (Wolv NE)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Flannery, Martin
MacCormick, Iain
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Siliars, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Skinner, Dennis


Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Small, William


Forrester, John
MacKenzie, Gregor
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mackintosh, John P.
Snape, Peter


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Freeson, Reginald
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Spriggs, Leslie


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McNamara, Kevin
Stallard, A. W.


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Madden, Max
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


George, Bruce
Magee, Bryan
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Gilbert, Dr John
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Stoddart, David


Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Simon
Stott, Roger


Golding, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Strang, Gavin


Gould, Bryan
Marks, Kenneth
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Gourlay, Harry
Marquand, David
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Graham, Ted
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Swain, Thomas


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Grocott, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John
Thompson, George


Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tierney, Sydney


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tinn, James


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Tomlinson, John


Hatton, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Tomney, Frank


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Molloy, William
Torney, Tom


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Moonman, Eric
Urwin, T. W.


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Henderson, Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Horam, John
Moyle, Roland
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Ward, Michael


Huckfield, Les
Newens, Stanley
Watking, David


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Noble, Mike
Watkinson, John


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oakes, Gordon
Watt, Hamish


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ogden, Eric
Weeton, Ken


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Halloran, Michael
Weitzman, David


Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice
Wellbeloved, James


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Andrew


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ovenden, John
White, James (Pollock)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Whitehead, Phillip


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Padley, Walter
Whitlock, William


Janner, Greville
Palmer, Arthur
Wigley, Dafydd


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Park, George
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Parker, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parry, Robert
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Perry, Ernest
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)



Prentice, Rt Hon Reg








Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Woof, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. Frank R. White and


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Young, David (Bolton E)
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Woodall, Alec






NOES


Abse, Leo
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Loveridge, John


Adley, Robert
Fox, Marcus
Luce, Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Alison, Michael
Freud, Clement
McCrindle, Robert


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fry, Peter
McCusker, H.


Arnold, Tom
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Macfarlane, Neil


Awdry, Daniel
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacGregor, John


Baker, Kenneth
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Banks, Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Beith, A. J.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Bell, Ronald
Glyn, Dr Alan
Madel, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil


Benyon, W.
Goodhew, Victor
Mates, Michael


Berry, Hon Anthony
Goodlad, Alastair
Mather, Carol


Biffen, John
Gorst, John
Maude, Angus


Biggs-Davison, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Blaker, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mawby, Ray


Body, Richard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gray, Hamish
Mayhew, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Grieve, Percy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Griffiths, Eldon
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mills, Peter


Bradford, Rev Robert
Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brittan, Leon
Hall, Sir John
Moate, Roger


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Molyneaux, James


Brotherton, Michael
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Fergus)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hannam, John
 Moore, John (Croydon C


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Buck, Antony
Hastings, Stephen
Morgan, Geraint


Budgen, Nick
Havers, Sir Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Bulmer, Esmond
Hawkins, Paul
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Burden, F A
Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Carlisle, Mark
Heseltine, Michael
Mudd, David


Carson, John
Hicks, Robert
Neave, Airey


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Higgins, Terence L.
Nelson, Anthony


Channon, Paul
Hodgson, Robin
Neubert, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Philip
Newton, Tony


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Button)
Hooson, Emlyn
Normanton, Tom


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hordern Peter
Nott, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Onslow, Cranley


Clegg, Walter
 Howell, David (Guildford)
 Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Cockcroft, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Osborn, John


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Cordle, John H.
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Cormack, Patrick
Hurd, Douglask
Paisley, Rev Ian


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pardoe, John


 Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Parkinson, Cecil


Critchley, Julian
James, David
 Pattie, Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Penhaligon, David


Crowder, F. P.
Jessel, Toby
Percival, Ian


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pink, R. Bonner


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Drayson, Burnaby
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Prior, Rt Hon James


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Dunlop, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Raison, Timothy


Durant, Tony
Kershaw, Anthony
Rathbone, Tim


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, James
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Elliott, Sir William
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Emery, Peter
Kirk, Sir Peter
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fairgrieve, Russell
Knox, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Farr, John
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Fell, Anthony
Lane, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoakes)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lawrence, Ivan
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lawson, Nigel
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lester, Mm (Beeston)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Forman, Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Sir Anthony



Lloyd, Ian
Sainsbury, Tim







St. John-Stevas, Norman
Stanley, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Scott, Nicholas
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wakenham, John


Scott-Hopkins, James
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Stokes, John
Walker-Smith Rt Hon Sir Derek


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wall, Fatrick


Shepherd, Colin
Tapsell, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Shersby, Michael
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Warren, Kenneth


Silvester, Fred
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wells, John


Sims, Roger
Tebbit, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Sinclair, Sir George
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret
Winterton, Nicholas


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Speed, Keith
Townsend, Cyril D.
Younger, Hon George


Spence, John
Trotter, Neville



Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Tugendhat, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. John Corrie and


Sproat, Iain
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.


Stanbrook, Ivor
Viggers, Peter





Division List 398 [See col.731]


Division No. 398.]
AYES
[7.24 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Allaun, Frank
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Huckfield, Les


Anderson, Donald
Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Archer, Peter
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Armstrong, Ernest
de Freltas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Ashley, Jack
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Ashton, Joe
Dempsey, James
Hunter, Adam


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Doig, Peter
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Atkinson, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Bagier, Goraon A. T.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dunn, James A.
Janner, Greville


Bates, Alf
Dunnett, Jack
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bean, R. E.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Edge, Geoff
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
John, Brynmor


Bishop, E. S.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Boardman, H.
English, Michael
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ennals, David
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boyden, James (Blsh Auck)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Judd, Frank


Bradley, Tom
Evans, John (Newton)
Kaufman, Gerald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Kelley Richard


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Faulds, Andrew
Kerr, Russell


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fitch Alan (Wigan)
Kinnock, Neil


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lambie, David


Buchan, Norman
Flannery Martin
Lamborn, Harry


Buchanan, Richard
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Lamond, James


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
 Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, Ian
Ford, Ben
Lee, john


Canavan, Dennis
Forrester, John
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Cant, R. B.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Carmichael, Neil
 Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Carter, Ray
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Garrert, John (Norwich S)
Lipton, Marcus


Cartwright, John
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Litterick, Tom


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Georoe Bruce
Loyden, Eddie


Clemitson, Ivor
Gilbert, Dr John
Luard, Evan


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Ginsburg, David
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Cohen, Stanley
Golding, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Coleman, Donald
Gould, Bryan
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Gourlay, Harry
McCartney, Hugh


Concannon, J. D.
Graham, Ted
McDonald, Dr Oonagn


Conlan, Bernard
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McElhone, Frank


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Grant, John (Islington C)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Corbett, Robin
Grocott, Bruce
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cowans, Harry
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
MacKenzie, Gregor


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hardy, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Harper, Joseph
Maclennan, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Cronin, John
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
McNamara, Kevin


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Madden, Max


Cryer, Bob
Hatton, Frank
Magee, Bryan


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mahon, Simon


Dalyell, Tam
Heffer, Eric S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Davidson, Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Horam, John
Marquand, David


Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)




Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)







Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Richardson, Miss Jo
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Meacher, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normartton)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Mendelson, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tierney, Sydney


Mikardo, Ian
Robinson, Geoffrey
Tomlinson, John


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Roderick, Caerwyn
Tomney, Frank


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Torney, Tom


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Rodgers. Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Urwin, T. W.


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Rooker, J. W.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Molloy, William
Roper, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Moonman, Eric
Rose, Paul B.
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Walker Harolo (Doncaster)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rowlands, Ted
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Ryman, John
Ward, Michael


Moyle, Roland
Sandelson, Neville
Watkins, David


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Sedgemore, Brian
Watkinson, John


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Selby, Harry
Weetch, Ken


Newens, Stanley
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Weitzman, David


Noble, Mike
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Wellbeloved, James


Oakes, Gordon
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ogden, Eric
Short, Mrs Reneé (Wolv NE)
White, James (Pollock)


O'Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Whitehead, Phillip


Orbach, Maurice
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Sillars, James
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ovenden, John
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Padley, Walter
Small, William
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Palmer, Arthur
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Park, George
Snape, Peter
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Parker, John
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Parry, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Pavitt, Laurie
Stallard, A. W.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pendry, Tom
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Woodall, Alec


Perry, Ernest
Stoddart, David
Woof, Robert


Phipps, Dr Colin
Stott, Roger
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Strang, Gavin
Young, David (Bolton E)


Prescott, John
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.



Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Price, William (Rugby)
Swain, Thomas
Mr. James Hamilton and


Radice, Giles
Taylor, Mrs Ami (Bolton v)
Mr. James Tinn,


NOES


Adley, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Freud, Clement


Aitken, Jonathan
Clegg, Walter
Fry, Peter


Alison, Michael
Cockcroft, John
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Arnold, Tom
Cope, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Awdry, Daniel
Cordle, John H.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cormack, Patrick
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Baker, Kenneth
Costain, A. P.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Banks, Robert
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Beith, A. J.
Crawford, Douglas
Goodhart, Philip


Bell, Ronald
Critchley, Julian
Goodhew, Victor


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Tortay)
Crouch, David
Goodlad, Alastair


Bennett, or Reginald (Fareham)
Crowder, F. P.
Gorst, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Biffen, John
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Blaker, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gray, Hamish


Body, Richard
Drayson, Burnaby
Grieve, Percy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Griffiths, Eldon


Bottomley, Peter
Dunlop, John
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Durant, Tony
Grist, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Dykes, Hugh
Grylls, Michael


Bradford, Rev Robert
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hall, Sir John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Brittan, Leon
Elliott, Sir William
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Emery, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brotherton, Michael
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Hannam, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eyre, Reginald
Hastings, Stephen


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Havers, Sir Michael


Buck, Antony
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hawkins, Paul


Budgen, Nick
Farr, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Bulmer, Esmond
Fell, Anthony
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Burden, F. A.
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Henderson, Douglas


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Heseltine, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Hicks, Robert


Carson, John
Fletcher-Cooks, Charles
Higgins, Terence L.


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hodgson, Robin


Channon, Paul
Forman, Nigel
Holland, Philip


Churchill, W. S.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Hooson, Emlyn


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fox, Marcus
Hordern, Peter


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey







Howell, David (Guildford)
Moate, Roger
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Molyneaux, James
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Monro, Hector
Shepherd, Colin


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Montgomery, Fergus
Shersby, Michael


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Silvester, Fred


Hurd, Douglas
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sims, Roger


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morgan, Geraint
Sinclair, Sir George


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Skeet, T. H. H.


James, David
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Jessel, Toby
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Speed, Keith


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Mudd, David
Spence, John


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Neave, Airey
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Nelson, Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Jopling, Michael
Neubert, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Newton, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Normanton, Tom
Stanley, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Nott, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Kershaw, Anthony
Onslow, Cranley
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Kilfedder, James
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Kimball, Marcus
Osborn, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Stokes, John


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Kirk, Sir Peter
Page, Richard (Workington)
Tapsell, Peter


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Paisley, Rev Ian
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Pardoe, John
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Knox, David
Parkinson, Cecil
Tebbit, Norman


Lamont, Norman
Pattie, Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lane, David
Penhaligon, David
Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Percival, Ian
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Lawrence, Ivan
Pink, R. Bonner
Thompson, George


Lawson, Nigel
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Trotter, Neville


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Tugendhat, Christopher


Lloyd, Ian
Raison, Timothy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Loveridge, John
Rathbone, Tim
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Luce, Richard
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Viggers, Peter


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


MacCormick, Iain
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wakeham, John


McCrindle, Robert
Reid, George
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


McCusker, H.
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Macfarlane, Neil
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


MacGregor, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wall, Patrick


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walters, Dennis


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Ridsdale, Julian
Warren, Kenneth


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Walt, Hamish


Madel, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wells, John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Welsh, Andrew


Marten, Neil
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Mates, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoakes)
Wiggin, Jerry


Mather, Carol
Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)
Wigley, Dafydd


Maude, Angus
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Winterton, Nicholas


Mawby, Ray
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Royle, Sir Anthony
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Mayhew, Patrick
Sainsbury, Tim
Younger, Hon George


Meyer, Sir Anthony
St. John-Stevas, Norman



Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Scott, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mills, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. John Corrie and


Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw. Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. W. Benyon.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)






Division List 399 [See col. 754]


Division No. 399.]
AYES
[8.47 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael


Allaun, Frank
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cohen, Stanley


Anderson, Donald
Bradley, Tom
Coleman, Donald


Archer, Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen


Armstrong, Ernest
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Concannon, J. D.


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Conlan, Bernard


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Corbett, Robin


Atkinson, Norman
Buchan, Norman
Cowans, Harry


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchanan, Richard
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Cronin, John


Bates, Alf
Campbell, Ian
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Bean, R. E.
Canavan, Dennis
Cryer, Bob


Bean, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carmichael, Neil
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter, Ray
Dalyell, Tam


Bishop, E. S.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davidson, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cartwright, John
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Boardman, H.
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Clemitson, Ivor
Davies, Ifor (Gower)







Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Radice, Giles


Deakins, Eric
Judd, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kaufman, Gerald
Richardson, Miss Joe


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dempsey, James
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Doig, Peter
Kinnock, Neil
Robinson, Geoffrey


Dormand, J. D.
Lambie, David
Roderick, Caerwyn


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamond, James
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Dunn, James A.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rooker, J. W.


Dunnett, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted
Roper, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lee, John
Rose, Paul B.


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Edge, Geoff
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rowlands, Ted


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Ryman, John


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sandelson, Neville


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lipton, Marcus
Sedgemore, Brian


English, Michael
Litterick, Tom
Selby, Harry


Ennals, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Loyden, Eddie
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Luard, Evan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, John (Newton)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Short, Mrs Reneé (Wolv NE)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McCartney, Hugh
Sillars, James


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silverman, Julius


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Small, William


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Forrester, John
McMillan. Tom (Glasgow C)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McNamara, Kevin
Stoddart. David


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Madden, Max
Stott. Roger


Freeson, Reginald
Magee, Bryan
Strang, Gavin


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mahon, Simon
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


George, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Swain, Thomas


Gilbert, Dr John
Marks, Kenneth
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Golding, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Gould, Bryan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Graham, Ted
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tierney, Sydney


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tomlinson, John


Grocott, Bruce
Mendelson, John
Tomney, Frank


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Urwin, T. W.


Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Harper, Joseph
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Molloy, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hatton, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ward, Michael


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, David


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watkinson, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland
Weetch, Ken


Hooley, Frank
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Weitzman, David


Horam, John
Murray. Rt Hon Ronald King
Wellbeloved, James


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Newens, Stanley
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Noble, Mike
White, James (Pollok)


Huckfield, Les
Oakes, Gordon
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Halloran, Michael
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hunter. Adam
Ovenden, John
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Padley, Walter
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Park, George
Wilson. William (Coventry SE)


Janner, Greville
Parker, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Parry, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Pavitt, Laurie
Woof, Robert


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Perry, Ernest
Young, David (Bolton E)


John, Brynmor
Phipps, Dr Colin



Johnson, James (Hull West)
Prescott, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. Peter Snape.


Jones, Barry (East Flint)









Adley, Robert
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Freud, Clement
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Alison, Michael
Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Madel, David


Arnold, Tom
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Awdry, Daniel
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marten, Neil


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Males, Michael


Baker, Kenneth
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mather, Carol


Banks, Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
Maude, Angus


Beith, A. J.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Bell, Ronald
Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Goodlad, Alastair
Mayhew, Patrick


Benyon, W.
Gorst, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Biffen, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mills, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miscampbell, Norman


Blaker, Peter
Gray, Hamish
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Body, Richard
Grieve, Percy
Moate, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Eldon
Molyneaux, James


Bottomley, Peter
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Monro, Hector


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Grylls, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hall, Sir John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint


Brittan, Leon
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Brotherton, Michael
Hannam, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Havers, Sir Michael
Mudd, David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hawkins, Paul
Heave, Airey


Buck, Antony
Hayhoe, Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Budgen, Nick
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Neubert, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Henderson, Douglas
Newton, Tony


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hicks, Robert
Nott, John


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley


Carson, John
Hodgson, Robin
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holland, Philip
Osborn, John


Channon, Paul
Hooson, Emlyn
Page, John (Harrow West)


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Richard (Workington)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pardoe, John


Clegg, Walter
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Parkinson, Cecil


Cockcroft, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Penhaligon, David


Cope, John
Hurd, Douglas
Percival, Ian


Cordle, John H.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Patrick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pink, R. Bonner


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; Wed)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crawford, Douglas
Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt Hon James


Critchley, Julian
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Crouch, David
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Raison, Timothy


Crowder, F. P.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rathbone, Tim


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Jopling Michael
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Reid, George


Drayson, Burnaby
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kilfedder, James
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Dunlop, John
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Durant, Tony
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kirk, Sir Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Elliott, Sir William
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Emery, Peter
Knox, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lamont, Norman
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Lane, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eyre, Reginald
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sainsbury, Tim


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawrence, Ivan
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Farr, John
Lawson, Nigel
Scott, Nicholas


Fell, Anthony
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott-Hopkins, James


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lloyd, tan
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Colin


Fookes, Miss Janet
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shersby, Michael


Forman, Nigel
MacCormick, Iain
Silvester, Fred


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McCrindle, Robert
Sims, Roger


Fox, Marcus
Macfarlane, Neil
Sinclair, Sir George



MacGregor, John
Skeet, T. H. H.







Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Tebbit, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Speed, Keith
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Warren, Kenneth


Spence, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Watt, Hamish


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Wells, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Thompson, George
Welsh, Andrew


Sproat, Iain
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Stanbrook, Ivor
Townsend, Cyril D.
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanley, John
Trotter, Neville
Wigley, Dafydd


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Viggers, Peter
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Stokes, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Younger, Hon George


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wakeham, John



Tapsell, Peter
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Mr. Jim Lester and


Taylor, Teddy Cathcart)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Mr. John Corrie.




Division List 400 [See col. 755]


Division No. 400.]
AYES
[9.02 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Allaun, Frank
Deakins, Eric
Huckfield, Les


Anderson, Donald
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Archer, Peter
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Ashley, Jack
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Doig, Peter
Hunter, Adam


Atkinson, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Barrett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dunn, James A.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Bates, Alf
Dunnett, Jack
Janner, Greville


Bean, R. E.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Eadie, Alex
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Edge, Geoff
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bidwell, Sydney
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Bishop, E. S.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
John, Brynmor


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Boardman, H.
English, Michael
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ennals, David
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bradley, Tom
Evans, John (Newton)
Judd, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Kaufman, Gerald


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Faulds, Andrew
Kelley, Richard


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kerr, Russell


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Kinnock, Neil


Buchan, Norman
Flannery, Martin
Lambie, David


Buchanan, Richard
Fletcher L. R. (Ilkeston)
Lam born, Harry


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamond, James


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Campbell, Ian
Ford, Ben
Leadbitter, Ted


Canavan, Dennis
Forrester, John
Lee, John


Cant, R. B.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Carmichael, Neil
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Carter, Ray
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)




Lewis Ron (Carlisle)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lipton, Marcus


Cartwright, John
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Litterick, Tom


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
George, Bruce
Lomas, Kenneth


Clemitson, Ivor
Gilbert, Dr John
Loyden, Eddie


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Ginsburg, David
Luard, Evan


Cohen, Stanley
Golding, John
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Coleman, Donald
Gould, Bryan
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Gourlay, Harry
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Concannon, J. D.
Graham, Ted
McCartney, Hugh


Conlan, Bernard
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Grant, John (Islington C)
McElhone, Frank


Corbett, Robin
Grocott, Bruce
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Cowans, Harry
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
MacKenzie, Gregor


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Hardy, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.


Crawshaw, Richard
Harper, Joseph
Maclennan, Robert


Cronin, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
McNamara, Kevin


Cryer, Bob
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Madden, Max


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hatton, Frank
Magee, Bryan


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Dalyell, Tam
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mahon, Simon


Davidson, Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hooley, Frank
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Horam, John
Marquand, David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)







Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Richardson, Miss Joe
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Meacher, Michael
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tierney, Sydney


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tinn, James


Mendelson, John
Robinson, Geoffrey
Tomlinson, John


Mikardo, Ian
Roderick, Caerwyn
Tomney, Frank


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Torney, Tom


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Urwin, T. W.


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Rooker, J. W.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Roper, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Molloy, William
Rose, Paul B.
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Moonman, Eric
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rowlands, Ted
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ryman, John
Ward, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Sandelson, Neville
Watkins, David


Moyle, Roland
Sedgemore, Brian
Watkinson, John


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Selby, Harry
Weetch, Ken


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Weitzman, David


Newens, Stanley
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Wellbeloved, James


Noble, Mike
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Oakes, Gordon
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
White, James (Pollok)


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Whitehead, Phillip


O'Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


Orbach, Maurice
Sillars, James
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Ovenden, John
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Owen, Rt Hon Or David
Small, William
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Padley, Walter
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Palmer, Arthur
Snape, Peter
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Park, George
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Parker, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Parry, Robert
Stallard, A. W.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pavitt, Laurie
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Woodall, Alec


Pendry, Tom
Stott, Roger
Woof, Robert


Perry, Ernest
Strang, Gavin
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Phipps, Dr Colin
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Prescott, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley



Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Swain, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Price, William (Rugby)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. David Stoddart and


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. Joseph Ashton




NOES


Adley, Robert
Clegg, Walter
Fry, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Cockcroft, John
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Alison, Michael
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cope, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Arnold, Tom
Cordle, John H.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Awdry, Daniel
Cormack, Patrick
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Corrie, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Baker, Kenneth
Costain, A. P.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Banks, Robert
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Goodhart, Philip


Beith, A. J.
Crawford, Douglas
Goodhew, Victor


Bell, Ronald
Critchley, Julian
Goodlad, Alastair


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Crouch, David
Gorst, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Crowder, F. P.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Biffen, John
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gray, Hamish


Blaker, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Grieve, Percy


Body, Richard
Drayson, Burnaby
Griffiths, Eldon


Boscawen, Hon Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Bottomley, Peter
Dunlop, John
Grist, Ian


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Durant, Tony
Grylls, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Dykes, Hugh
Hall, Sir John


Bradford, Rev Robert
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brittan, Leon
Elliott, Sir William
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Emery, Peter
Hannam, John


Brotherton, Michael
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Hastings, Stephen


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eyre, Reginald
Havers, Sir Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hawkins, Paul


Buck, Antony
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hayhoe, Barney


Budgen, Nick
Farr, John
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bulmer, Esmond
Fell, Anthony
Henderson, Douglas


Burden, F. A.
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Heseltine, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Mark
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Higgins, Terence L.


Carson, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hodgson, Robin


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fookes, Miss Janet
Holland, Philip


Channon, Paul
Forman, Nigel
Hooson, Emlyn


Churchill, W. S.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Hordern, Peter


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sotton)
Fox, Marcus
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Freud, Clement
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)







Hunt, David (Wirral)
Monro, Hector
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Montgomery, Fergus
Shepherd, Colin


Hurd, Douglas
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Shersby, Michael


Hutchison, Michael Clark
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Silvester, Fred


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morgan, Geraint
Sims, Roger


James, David
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Sinclair, Sir George


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Jessel, Toby
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Mudd, David
Speed, Keith


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Neave, Airey
Spence, John


Jopling Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Neubert, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Newton, Tony
Sproat, Iain


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Normanton, Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kershaw, Anthony
Nott, John
Stanley, John


Kilfedder, James
Onslow, Cranley
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Kimball, Marcus
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Osborn, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Kirk, Sir Peter
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stokes, John


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Page, Richard (Workington)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Knight, Mrs Jill
Paisley, Rev Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Knox, David
Pardoe, John
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Lamont, Norman
Parkinson, Cecil
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Lane, David
Pattie, Geoffrey
Tebbit, Norman


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Penhaligon, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Percival, Ian
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Lawrence, Ivan
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Lawson, Nigel
Pink, R. Bonner
Thompson, George


Le Marchant, Spencer
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Trotter, Neville


Lloyd, Ian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Tugendhat, Christopher


Loveridge, John
Raison, Timothy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Luce, Richard
Rathbone, Tim
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Viggers, Peter


MacCormick, Iain
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


McCrindle, Robert
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wakeham, John


McCusker, H.
Reid, George
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Macfarlane, Neil
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


MacGregor, John
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wall, Patrick


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walters, Dennis


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Ridsdale, Julian
Warren, Kenneth


Madel, David
Rifkind, Malcolm
Watt, Hamish


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wells, John


Marten, Neil
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Welsh, Andrew


Mates, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Maude, Angus
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wiggin, Jerry


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mawby, Ray
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Winterton, Nicholas


Mayhew, Patrick
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sainsbury, Tim
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Younger, Hon George


Mills, Peter
Scott, Nicholas



Miscampbell, Norman
Scott-Hopkins, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. W. Benyon and


Moate, Roger
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Mr. Carol Mather


Molyneaux, James






Division List 401 [See col. 755]


Division No. 401.]
AYES
[9.18 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Boy den, James (Bish Auck)
Coleman, Donald


Allaun, Frank
Bradley, Tom
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Concannon, J. D.


Archer, Peter
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Conlan, Bernard


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Corbett, Robin


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cowans, Harry


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Buchan, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Atkinson, Norman
Buchanan, Richard
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Cronin, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Campbell, Ian
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Bates, Alf
Canavan, Dennis
Cryer, Bob


Bean, R. E.
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Carmichael, Neil
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carter, Ray
Dalyell, Tam


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davidson, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Cartwright, John
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Boardman, H.
Clemitson, Ivor
Daviet, Ifor (Gower)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cocka, Rt Hon Michael
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cohen, Stanley
Deakins, Eric







Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kelley, Richard
Richardson, Miss Joe


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dempsey, James
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Doig, Peter
Kinnock, Neil
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dormand, J. D.
Lambie, David
Robinson, Geoffrey


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamborn, Harry
Roderick, Caerwyn


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamond, James
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dunn, James A.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Dunnett, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted
Rooker, J. W.


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lee, John
Roper, John


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rose, Paul B.


Edge, Geoff
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Rowlands, Ted


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ryman, John


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lipton, Marcus
Sandelson, Neville


English, Michael
Litterick, Tom
Sedgemore, Brian


Ennals, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Selby, Harry


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Loyden, Eddie
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Luard, Evan
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Evans, John (Newton)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sillars, James


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McElhone, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Flannery, Martin
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Skinner, Dennis


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Small, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Spearing, Nigel


Ford, Ben
Maclennan. Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stallard, A. W.


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McNamara, Kevin
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Madden, Max
Stoddart, David


Freeson, Reginald
Magee, Bryan
Stott, Roger


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Strang, Gavin


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mahon, Simon
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


George, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Gilbert, Dr John
Marks, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Golding, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Gould, Bryan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle Es)


Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thorne, Stan (Presion South)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Meacher, Michael
Tierney, Sydney


Grocott, Bruce
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tinn, James


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, John
Tomlinson, John


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, Frank


Hardy, Peter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Torney, Tom


Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Urwin, T. W.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Molloy, William
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Hatton, Frank
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hayman, Mrs Helena
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ward, Michael


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Welkins, David


Hooley, Frank
Moyle, Roland
Watkinson, John


Horam, John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Weetch, Ken


Howell. Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Weitzman, David


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Newens, Stanley
Wellbeloved, James


Huckfield, Les
Noble, Mike
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon
White, James (Pollok)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ogden. Eric
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hunter, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ovenden, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Padley, Walter
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Janner, Greville
Park, George
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Parker, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Parry, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurie
Woodall, Alec


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Pendry, Tom
Woof, Robert


John, Brynmor
Perry, Ernest
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Johnson, James (Hull Welt)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Young, David (Bolton E)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Prescott, John



Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. Peter Snape and


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Radice, Giles
Mr. Ted Graham.


Judd, Frank









NOES


Adley, Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chatham)
Marten, Neil


Aitken, Jonathan
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mates, Michael


Alison, Michael
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Maude, Angus


Arnold, Tom
Goodhart, Philip
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Awdry, Daniel
Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray


Baker, Kenneth
Goodlad, Alastair
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Banks, Robert
Gorst, John
Mayhew, Patrick


Beith, A. J.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mills, Peter


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman


Benyon, W.
Grieve. Percy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon
Moate, Roger


Bitten, John
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Molyneaux, James


Biggs-Davison, John
Grist, Ian
Monro, Hector


Blaker, Peter
Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Body, Richard
Hall, Sir John
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hannam, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brittan, Leon
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Havers, Sir Michael
Mudd, David


Brotherton, Michael
Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hayhoe, Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Neubert, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Heseltine, Michael
Newton, Tony


Buck, Antony
Hicks, Robert
Normanton, Tom


Budgen, Nick
Higgins, Terence L.
Nott, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Hodgson, Robin
Onslow, Cranley


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hooson, Emlyn
Osborn, John


Carlisle, Mark
Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow West)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Channon, Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pardoe, John


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Parkinson, Cecil


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Clegg, Walter
Hurd, Douglas
Penhaligon, David


Cockcroft, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Cope, John
James, David
Pink, R. Bonner


Cordle, John H.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Corrie, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Costain, A. P.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Raison, Timothy


Critchley, Julian
Jopling Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Crouch, David
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kilfedder, James
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Drayson, Burnaby
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Dunlop, John
Kirk, Sir Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm


Durant, Tony
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Knox, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lament, Norman
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Elliott, Sir William
Lane, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Emery, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eyre, Reginald
Latham. Michael (Merton)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawson, Nigel
Sainsbury, Tim


Farr, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fell, Anthony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Scott, Nicholas


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lloyd, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luce, Richard
She lion, William (Streatham)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shepherd, Colin


Forman, Nigel
McCrindle, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McCusker, H.
Silvester, Fred


Fox, Marcus
Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
MacGregor, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Freud, Clement
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spence, John







Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Walters, Dennis


Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Warren, Kenneth


Sproat, Iain
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Wells, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Townsend, Cyril D.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Stanley, John
Trotter, Neville
Wiggin, Jerry


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wigley, Dafydd


Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Stokes, John
Viggers, Peter
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wainwright, Richard (Coins V)
Younger, Hon George


Tapsell, Peter
Wakeham, John



Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, Teddy Cathcart)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Mr. Robert Bradford and


Tebbit, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Mr. John Carson.


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wall, Patrick





Division List 402 [see col. 756]


Division No. 402.]
AYES
[9.35 p.m.


Abse, Leo
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Allaun, Frank
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Anderson, Donald
Dempsey, James
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Archer, Peter
Doig, Peter
Janner, Greville


Armstrong, Ernest
Dormand, J. D.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Ashley, Jack
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Atkinson, Norman
Dunn, James A.
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunnett, Jack
John, Brynmor


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Bates, Alt
Edge, Geoff
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Bean, R. E.
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Judd, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
English, Michael
Kaufman, Gerald


Bishop, E. S.
Ennals, David
Kelley, Richard


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Kerr, Russell


Boardman, H.
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Evans, John (Newton)
Kinnock, Neil


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lambie, David


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Faulds, Andrew
Lamborn, Harry


Bradley, Tom
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lamond, James


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Flannery, Martin
Lee, John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Lester, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Buchanan, Richard
Ford, Ben
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Forrester, John
Lipton, Marcus


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Litterick, Tom


Campbell, Ian
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lomas, Kenneth


Canavan, Dennis
Freeson, Reginald
Loyden, Eddie


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Luard, Evan


Carmichael, Neil
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Carter, Ray
George, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gilbert, Dr John
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Cartwright, John
Ginsburg, David
McCartney, Hugh


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Golding, John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clemitson, Ivor
Gould, Bryan
McElhone, Frank


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Gourlay, Harry
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Cohen, Stanley
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Coleman, Donald
Grant, John (Islington C)
MacKenzie, Gregor


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Grocott, Bruce
Mackintosh, John P.


Concannon, J. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maclennan, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hardy, Peter
McNamara, Kevin


Corbett, Robin
Harper, Joseph
Madden, Max


Cowans, Harry
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Magee, Bryan


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mahon, Simon


Crawshaw, Richard
Hatton, Frank
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cronin, John
Hayman, Mrs Helens
Marks, Kenneth


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Marquand, David


Cryer, Bob
Heffer, Eric S.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hooley, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Horam, John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dalyell, Tam
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davidson, Arthur
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Huckfield, Les
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Davies, Derail (Llanelli)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mendelson, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dean, Joseph (Leads West)
Hunter, Adam
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)



Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)







Molloy, William
Rooker, J. W.
Tinn, James


Moonman, Eric
Roper, John
Tomlinson, John


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rose, Paul B.
Tomney, Frank


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Torney, Tom


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Rowlands, Ted
Urwin, T. W.


Moyle, Roland
Ryman, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Sandelson, Neville
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Sedgemore, Brian
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Newens, Stanley
Selby, Harry
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Noble, Mike
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Oakes, Gordon
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Ward, Michael


Ogden, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Watkins, David


O'Halloran, Michael
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv HE)
Watkinson, John


Orbach, Maurice
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Weetch, Ken


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Weitzman, David


Ovenden, John
Sillars, James
Wellbeloved, James


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Silverman, Julius
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Padley, Walter
Skinner, Dennis
White, James (Pollok)


Palmer, Arthur
Small, William
Whitehead, Phillip


Park, George
Smith. John (N Lanarkshire)
Whitlock, William


Parker, John
Snape, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Parry, Robert
Spearing, Nigel
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Pavitt, Laurie
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Pendry, Tom
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Perry, Ernest
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Phipps, Dr Colin
Stoddart, David
Williams. Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Prescott, John
Stott, Roger
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Price, William (Rugby)
Strauss, Rt Han G. R.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Radice, Giles
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Swain, Thomas
Woodall, Alec


Richardson, Miss Joe
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Woof, Robert


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)



Robinson, Geoffrey
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roderick, Caerwyn
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Mr. Ted Graham and


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Tierney, Sydney
Mr. Joseph Ashton.


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Cockcroft, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Alison, Michael
Cope, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cordle, John H.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Arnold, Tom
Cormack, Patrick
Goodhart, Philip


Awdry, Daniel
Corrie, John
Goodhew, Victor


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Costain, A. P.
Goodlad, Alastair


Baker, Kenneth
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Gorst, John


Banks, Robert
Crawford, Douglas
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Beith, A. J.
Critchley, Julian
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Bell, Ronald
Crouch, David
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Crowder, F. P.
Gray, Hamish


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Grieve, Percy


Benyon, W.
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Griffiths, Eldon


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Biffen, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Grist, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Drayson, Burnaby
Grylls, Michael


Blaker, Peter
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hall, Sir John


Body, Richard
Dunlop, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Durant, Tony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bottomley, Peter
Dykes, Hugh
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hannam, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Bradford, Rev Robert
Elliott, Sir William
Hastings, Stephen


Braine, Sir Bernard
Emery, Peter
Havers, Sir Michael


Brittan, Leon
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Hawkins, Paul


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Eyre, Reginald
Hayhoe, Barney


Brotherton, Michael
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Henderson, Douglas


Bryan, Sir Paul
Farr, John
Heseltine, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fell, Anthony
Hicks, Robert


Buck, Antony
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Higgins, Terence L.


Budgen, Nick
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hodgson, Robin


Bulmer, Esmond
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Holland, Philip


Burden, F. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hooson, Emlyn


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hordern, Peter


Carlisle, Mark
Forman, Nigel
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carson, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fox, Marcus
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Channon, Paul
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Churchill, W. S.
Freud, Clement
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fry, Peter
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Hurd, Douglas


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Clegg, Walter
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)







James, David
Montgomery, Fergus
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Shepherd, Colin


Jessel, Toby
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Shersby, Michael


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Morgan, Geraint
Sims, Roger


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Sinclair, Sir George


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Jopling, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Mudd, David
Speed, Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Neave, Airey
Spence, John


Kershaw, Anthony
Nelson, Anthony
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Kilfedder, James
Neubert, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Kimball, Marcus
Newton, Tony
Sproat, Iain


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Normanton, Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Nott, John
Stanley, John


Kirk, Sir Peter
Onslow, Cranley
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Osborn, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Knox, David
Page, John (Harrow West)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Lament, Norman
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stokes, John


Lane, David
Page, Richard (Workington)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Paisley, Rev Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Pardoe, John
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Lawrence, Ivan
Pattie, Geoffrey
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Lawson, Nigel
Penhaligon, David
Tebbit, Norman


Le Marchant, Spencer
Percival, Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pink, R. Bonner
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Lloyd, Ian
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Thompson, George


Loveridge, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Luce, Richard
Prior, Rt Hon James
Townsend, Cyril D.


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Trotter, Neville


MacCormick, Iain
Raison, Timothy
Tugendhat, Christopher


McCrindle, Robert
Rathbone. Tim
van Straubenzee, W. R.


McCusker, H.
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Macfarlane, Neil
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Viggers, Peter


MacGregor, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Reid, George
Wakeham, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Madel, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wall, Patrick


Marten, Neil
Ridsdale, Julian
Walters, Dennis


Mates, Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm
Warren, Kenneth


Mather, Carol
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Watt, Hamish


Maude, Angus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wells, John


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Welsh, Andrew


Mawby, Ray
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Wiggin, Jerry


Mayhew, Patrick
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Winterton, Nicholas


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Mills, Peter
Sainsbury, Tim
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Miscampbell, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Younger, Hon George


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott, Nicholas



Moate, Roger
Scott-Hopkins, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Molyneaux, James
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Fred Silvester and


Monro, Hector
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.




Division List 403 [See col. 756]


Division No. 403.]
AYES
[9.52 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Allaun, Frank
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Corbett, Room


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cowans, Harry


Archer, Peter
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Ashley, Jack
Buchan, Norman
Crawshaw, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Buchanan, Richard
Cronin, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Atkinson, Norman
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton A P)
Cryer, Bob


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Campbell, Ian
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Canavan, Dennis
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cant, R. B.
Dalyell, Tam


Bates, Alf
Carmichael, Neil
Davidson, Arthur


Bean, R. E.
Carter, Ray
Davies Bryan (Enfield N)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cartwright, John
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bidwell, Sydney
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Bishop, E. S.
Clemitson, Ivor
Deakins, Eric


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Boardman, H.
Cohen, Stanley
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Coleman, Donald
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Dempsey, James


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Concannon, J. D.
Doig, Peter


Bradley, Tom
Conlan, Bernard
Dormand, J. D.







Douglas-Mann, Brace
Ken, Russell
Richardson, Miss Jo


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunn, James A.
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dunnett, Jack
Lambie, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lamborn, Harry
Robinson, Geoffrey


Eadie, Alex
Lamond, James
Roderick, Caerwyn


Edge, Geoff
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lee, John
Rooker, J. W.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roper, John


English, Michael
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rose, Paul B.


Ennals, David
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, Ted


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lipton, Marcus
Ryman, John


Evans, John (Newton)
Litterick, Tom
Sandelson, Neville


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lomas, Kenneth
Sedgemore, Brian


Faulds, Andrew
Loyden, Eddie
Selby, Harry


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Luard, Evan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Flannery, Martin
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McElhone, Frank
Sillars, James


Ford, Ben
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silverman, Julius


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Skinner, Dennis


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Small, William


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mackintosh, John P.
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan. Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McMillan, torn (Glasgow C)
Spriggs, Leslie


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McNamara, Kevin
Stallard, A. W.


George, Bruce
Madden, Max
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Gilbert, Dr John
Magee, Bryan
Stott, Roger


Ginsburg, David
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Strang, Gavin


Golding, John
Mahon, Simon
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Gould, Bryan
Mallalieu, J. p. W.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Gourlay, Harry
Marks, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Graham, Ted
Marquand, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Grocott, Bruce
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central File)
Meacher, Michael
Tierney, Sydney


Hardy, Peter
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tinn, James


Harper, Joseph
Mendel son, John
Tomlinson, John


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian
Tourney, Frank


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tomney, Tom


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Urwin, T. W.


Hatton, Frank
Miller, Mrs Millie (Word N)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Healey, Rt Hon Dents
Molloy, William
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Heffer, Eric S.
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ward, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watkins, David


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Moyle, Roland
Watkinson, John


Huckfield, Les
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Weetch, Ken


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Newens, Stanley
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Noble, Mike
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon
White, James (Pollock)


Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric
Whitehead, Phillip


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitlock, William


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Orbach, Maurice
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ovenden, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Janner, Greville
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Padley, Walter
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Park, George
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Parker, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Pavitt, Laurie
Woodall, Alec


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Pendry, Tom
Woof, Robert


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Perry, Ernest
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prescott, John



Judd, Frank
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kaufman, Gerald
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. Peter Snape and


Kelley, Richard
Radice, Giles
Mr David Stoddart.



Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leads S)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bain, Mrs Margaret


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Tom
Baker, Kenneth


Alison, Michael
Awdry, Daniel
Banks, Robert







Beith, A. J.
Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bell, Ronald
Goodlad, Alastair
Mayhew, Patrick


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Gorst, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Benyon, W.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mills, Peter


Bitten, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miscampbell, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Gray, Hamish
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Blaker, Peter
Grieve, Percy
Moate, Roger


Body, Richard
Griffiths, Eldon
Molyneaux, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Monro, Hector


Bottomley, Peter
Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Grylls, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Boys-on, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hall, Sir John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Brittan, Leon
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hannam, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brotherton, Michael
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Brown, Sir Edward (Beth)
Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Havers, Sir Michael
Neave, Airey


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hawkins, Paul
Nelson, Anthony


Buck, Antony
Hayhoe, Barney
Neubert, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Newton, Tony


Bulmer, Esmond
Henderson, Douglas
Normanton, Tom


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael
Nott, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Oppenheim, Mrs Salty


Carson, John
Hodgson, Robin
Osborn, John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow West)


Channon, Paul
Hooson, Emlyn
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter
Page, Richard (Workington)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pardoe, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Parkinson, Cecil


Clegg, Walter
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cockcroft, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Penhaligon, David


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Percival, Ian


Cope, John
Hurd, Douglas
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Cordle, John H.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Cormack, Patrick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Powell, Rt Hon J, Enoch


Corrie, John
James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Ballast E)
Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Crawford, Douglas
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy


Critchley, Julian
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rathbone, Tim


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Reid, George


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Drayson, Burnaby
Kilfedder, James
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Dunlop, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridsdale, Julian


Durant, Tony
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dykes, Hugh
Kirk, Sir Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoakes)


Elliott, Sir William
Knox, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Emery, Peter
Lamont, Norman
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lane, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Eyre, Reginald
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Tim


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawson, Nigel
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Farr, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Scott, Nicholas


Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shepherd, Colin


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacCormick, Iain
Shersby, Michael


Forman, Nigel
McCrindle, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McCusker, H.
Sims, Roger


Fox, Marcus
Macfarlane, Neil
Sinclair, Sir George


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
MacGregor, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Freud, Clement
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Speed, Keith


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madel, David
Spence, John


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Marten, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mates, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Maude, Angus
Stanley, John


Goodhart. Philip
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Steel, David (Roxburgh)



Mawby, Ray
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)







Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Trotter, Neville
Wells, John


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Welsh, Andrew


Stokes, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Stradling Thomas, J.
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry


Tapsell, Peter
Viggers, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Wainwright, Richard (Coins V)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wakeham, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Tebbit, Norman
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Temple-Morris, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Younger, Hon George


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wall, Patrick



Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Walters, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Thompson, George
Warran, Kenneth
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Watt, Hamish
Mr Spencer Le Marchant.


Townsend, Cyril D.






Division List 404 [See col. 757]


Division No. 404.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Elliott, Sir William
James, David


Alison, Michael
Emery, Peter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jessel, Toby


Arnold, Tom
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Awdry, Daniel
Eyre, Reginald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Baker, Kenneth
Fairgrieve, Russell
Jopling, Michael


Banks, Robert
Farr, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Beith, A. J.
Fell, Anthony
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bell, Ronald
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kershaw, Anthony


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Kilfedder, James


Benyon, W.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kimball, Marcus


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Biffen, John
Forman, Nigel
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Kirk, Sir Peter


Blaker, Peter
Fox, Marcus
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Body, Richard
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Freud, Clement
Knox, David


Bottomley, Peter
Fry, Peter
Lamont, Norman


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Lane, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bradford, Rev Robert
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Lawrence, Ivan


Brittan, Leon
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Lawson, Nigel


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Glyn, Dr Alan
Le Marchant, Spencer


Brotherton, Michael
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhart, Philip
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Goodlad, Alastair
Loveridge, John


Buck, Antony
Gorst, John
Luce, Richard


Budgen, Nick
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bulmer, Esmond
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
MacCormick, Iain


Burden, F. A.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
McCrindle, Robert


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gray, Hamish
McCusker, H.


Carlisle, Mark
Grieve, Percy
Macfarlane, Neil


Carson, John
Griffiths, Eldon
MacGregor, John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Channon, Paul
Grist, Ian
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Churchill, W. S.
Grylls, Michael
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hall, Sir John
Madel, David


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marten, Neil


Clegg, Walter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mates, Michael


Cockcroft, John
Hannam, John
Mather, Carol


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Maude, Angus


Cope, John
Hastings, Stephen
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Cordle, John H.
Havers, Sir Michael
Mawby, Ray


Cormack, Patrick
Hawkins, Paul
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Corrie, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Mayhew, Patrick


Costain, A. P.
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Henderson, Douglas
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Crawford, Douglas
Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Hicks, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman


Crouch, David
Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Crowder, F. P.
Holland, Philip
Moate, Roger


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hooson, Emlyn
Molyneaux, James


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hordern, Peter
Monro, Hector


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Montgomery, Fergus


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Howell, David (Guildford)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Drayson, Burnaby
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morgan, Geraint


Dunlop, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Durant, Tony
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Dykes, Hugh
Hurd, Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)







Mudd, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Neave, Airey
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tebbit, Norman


Nelson, Anthony
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Newton, Tony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Normanton, Tom
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Nott, John
Royle, Sir Anthony
Thompson, George


Onslow, Cranley
Sainsbury, Tim
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Townsend, Cyril D.


Osborn, John
Scott, Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Page, John (Harrow West)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Tugendhat, Christopher


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Page, Richard (Workington)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Paisley, Rev Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Viggers, Peter


Parkinson, Cecil
Shepherd, Colin
Wakeham, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Shersby, Michael
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Penhaligon, David
Silvester, Fred
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Percival Ian




Peyton, Rt Hon John
Sims, Roger
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Pink, R. Bonner
Sinclair, Sir George
Wall, Patrick


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walters, Dennis


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Warren, Kenneth


Prior, Rt Hon James
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Watt, Hamish


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Speed, Keith
Wells, John


Raison, Timothy
Spence, John
Welsh, Andrew


Rathbone, Tim
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wiggin, Jerry


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Sproat, Iain
Wigley, Dafydd


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Reid, George
Stanley, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Younger, Hon George


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stewart. Ian (Hitchin)



Ridsdale, Julian
Stokes, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stradling Thomas, J.
Mr. John Pardoe and


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Richard Wainwright


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Concannon, J. D.
Flannery, Martin


Allaun, Frank
Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)


Anderson, Donald
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Archer, Peter
Corbett, Robin
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Cowans, Harry
Ford, Ben


Ashley, Jack
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Forrester, John


Ashton, Joe
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Atkinson, Norman
Cronin, John
Freeson, Reginald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cryer, Bob
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
George, Bruce


Bates, Alf
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Gilbert, Dr John


Bean, R. E.
Dalyell, Tam
Ginsburg, David


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, Arthur
Golding, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Gould, Bryan


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Gourlay, Harry


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Boardman, H.
Deakins, Eric
Grocott, Bruce


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hardy, Peter


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Harper, Joseph


Bradley, Tom
Dempsey, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Doig, Peter
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dormand, J. D.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hatton, Frank


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Dunn, James A.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Buchan, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Heffer, Eric S.


Buchanan, Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hooley, Frank


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Eadie, Alex
Horam, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Edge, Geoff
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Campbell, Ian
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Canavan, Dennis
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Huckfield, Les


Cant, R. B.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Carmichael, Neil
English, Michael
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Carter, Ray
Ennals, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cartwright, John
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Hunter, Adam


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Evans, John (Newton)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Clemitson, Ivor
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Faulds, Andrew
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Cohen, Stanley
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Coleman, Donald
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Janner, Greville


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas







Jeger, Mrs Lena
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kllbride)
Silverman, Julius


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Skinner, Dennis


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Small, William


John, Brynmor
Molloy, William
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Moonman, Eric
Snape, Peter


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Barry (East Fllnt)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stallard, A. W.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Moyle, Roland
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Judd, Frank
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stoddart, David


Kaufman, Gerald
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stott, Roger


Kelley, Richard
Newens, Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Kerr, Russell
Noble, Mike
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Oakes, Gordon
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Kinnock, Neil
Ogden, Eric
Swain, Thomas


Lambie, David
O'Halloran, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Lamborn, Harry
Orbach, Maurice
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lamond, James
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Ovenden, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Leadbitter, Ted
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lee, John
Padley, Walter
Tierney, Sydney


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Palmer, Arthur
Tinn, James


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Park, George
Tomlinson, John


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Parker, John
Tomney, Frank


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parry, Robert
Torney, Tom


Lipton, Marcus
Pavitt, Laurie
Urwin, T. W.


Litterick, Tom
Pendry, Tom
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Lomas, Kenneth
Perry, Ernest
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Loyden, Eddie
Phipps, Dr Colin
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Luard, Evan
Prentice, Rt Hon Rag
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Prescott, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Ward, Michael


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Price, William (Rugby)
Watkins, David


McCartney, Hugh
Radice, Giles
Watkinson, John


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Weetch, Ken


McElhone, Frank
Richardson, Miss Joe
Weitzman, David


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wellbeloved, James


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


MacKenzie, Gregor
Robertson, John (Paisley)
White, James (Pollok)


Mackintosh, John P.
Robinson, Geoffrey
Whitehead. Phillip


Maclennan, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn
Whitlock, William


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


McNamara, Kevin
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Madden, Max
Rooker, J. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Magee, Bryan
Roper, John
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Rose, Paul B.
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Mahon, Simon
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Marks, Kenneth
Ryman, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Marquand, David
Sandelson, Neville
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sedgemore, Brian
Woodall, Alec


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Selby, Harry
Woof, Robert


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Maynard, Miss Joan
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Meacher, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter



Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mendelson, John
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Mr. Ted Graham and


Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. James Hamilton


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Sillars, James